HC junks petitions of disqualified MLA trio
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, July 13 2021: The High Court of Manipur on Tuesday dismissed three writ petitions filed by three MLAs who have been disqualified by the Speaker of the state Legislative Assembly.

On Tuesday, a division bench of High Court comprising Justices Lanusungkum Jamir and Ahanthem Bimol heard the writ petitions filed by former MLAs TT Haokip (Henglep), Samuel Jendai (Tamendlong) and S Subhaschandra (Naoriya Pakhanglakpa).

During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel argued that no admissible order was issued approving the resignations submitted by the ex-MLAs and also that the petitioners were not informed of their resignations being approved.

Responding to the argument, the affidavit filed by the Speaker said that no fixed timeline is provided to the speaker to approve a resignation as per the Constitution of India or "Procedure and Conduct Rules".

If the resignation is found to be true and submitted out of free will, the speaker is allowed to approve the same.

The affidavit further stated that the speaker had accepted the resignation in writing, while iterating that neither the Constitution of India nor the "Procedure and Conduct Rules" directs a speaker to issued an order on the same.

After listening to submissions of both sides, the Court observed that if an MLA of the state had willingly and truthfully submitted a resignation, the speaker is allowed to approve the same at any given time as the Constitution of India or "Procedure and Conduct Rules" has not specified any fixed period.

As such, the argument that the speaker had accepted the resignations rashly holds no merit.

Furthermore, the petitioners' counsels failed to prove that a speaker must inform the petitioners for approval of the resignation is invalid as per the Constitution of India or "Procedure and Conduct Rules".

In the context of the case, after the speaker approved the resignations, the secretary of the state Legislative Assembly published it as a bulletin in the official gazette on June 18, 2020 in accordance to Rule 315(6) of "Procedure and Conduct Rules".

Thus, the Court remarked that the petitioners cannot argue they were not informed personally when the publication in the official gazette implies the matter is in public domain.

As there is no valid reason for the court to intervene in the matter, the court dismissed the petitions on Tuesday.

Comment