The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): In a significant development within Himachal Pradesh’s political arena, the Supreme Court posed a question to six Congress MLAs, disqualified after cross-voting in the recent Rajya Sabha elections, regarding their decision not to appeal their disqualification at the Himachal Pradesh High Court first. The query came as the MLAs sought judicial review of their disqualification by the Himachal Pradesh Assembly Speaker Kuldeep Singh Pathania on February 29, following the Congress party’s complaint against their defiance of the mandated party whip during the budget vote.
The judicial bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, entertained the plea of the disqualified MLAs. However, during the proceedings, the absence of their senior counsel, Harish Salve, led to a request for adjournment to March 15 or March 18. Justice Khanna seized this moment to inquire about their decision to directly approach the apex court, highlighting that being elected as MLAs does not constitute a fundamental right, thus questioning the urgency and the bypass of the high court.
This unusual legal trajectory follows the contentious political drama that unfolded with the MLAs’ cross-voting in favor of the BJP nominee, leading to the loss of senior Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi in the Rajya Sabha elections. The Speaker’s swift action to disqualify the MLAs citing the anti-defection law sparked a debate on the application of natural justice, as the MLAs contended they were not given a fair opportunity to present their case before the disqualification.
The disqualification significantly altered the composition of the Himachal Pradesh Assembly, reducing the effective strength of the House and diminishing the Congress’s representation. The disqualified MLAs, alleging a violation of natural justice principles, have named Speaker Pathania, state Parliamentary Affairs Minister Harsh Vardhan Chauhan, among others, as respondents in their Supreme Court plea.
The crux of the controversy lies in the application of the anti-defection law, under which the MLAs were disqualified for defying the party whip by abstaining from voting on the budget despite marking attendance. This incident has not only highlighted the internal strife within the Congress but also underscored the intricate balance between party loyalty and individual legislator discretion under India’s parliamentary democracy.
The Assembly’s proceedings, which saw the Finance Bill passed by voice vote following the suspension of 15 BJP MLAs, further compound the political intrigue, with the Speaker asserting the necessity of a prompt judgment to uphold democratic dignity and prevent political flippancy, famously termed as the “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” phenomenon.
As the Supreme Court postpones the hearing to March 18, the legal and political narrative surrounding the disqualification of the Congress MLAs in Himachal Pradesh continues to evolve, setting a precedent for the interpretation of anti-defection laws and the procedural norms governing the disqualification of elected representatives. This case not only tests the waters of legal jurisprudence regarding party defections but also challenges the political dynamics within the state, possibly influencing future electoral strategies and party discipline mechanisms.
