Lisa Coutinho | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 23rd March 2020
Ram Chandra Prasad Singh v. Sharad Yadav Civil Appeal No. 2004 of 2020
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Member of Parliament (Raj Sabha) and leader of JD(U) in Rajya Sabha filed a petition before the Chairman of Rajya Sabha under Article 102(2) read with paragraph 6 of the 10th schedule of the constitution praying that respondent no.1, member of Rajya Sabha be disqualified and his seat be declared vacant. After following the due procedure, and after an oral hearing, the chairman disqualified respondent no.1. Challenging the disqualification, respondent 1 filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. An application was filed by the appellant seeking permission to place additional documents on record alleging some post disqualification conducts of the MP. This application was rejected by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Whether the application filed by the appellant has been erroneously rejected by the High Court.
Relying on Section 8 of Evidence act, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both previous and subsequent conducts are relevant thus contending that the High Court has erred in rejecting his application.
The leaned counsel for the respondent submits that subsequent conducts and events, which has taken place after the order of the Chairman are neither germane nor relevant for disqualification. Thus contending that the High Court has rightly disqualified the application of the appellant.
The Apex Court stated that when the appellant had filed the petition, the foundation for disqualification of respondent was already laid down. Additional evidence, which is sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the basis for seeking disqualification. Hence the Apex Court does not find any error in the order of the High Court rejecting the application of the appellant.
The Supreme Court stated that any event or conduct of a person even though subsequent to passing of an order of Speaker or Chairman, ordinarily may not be relevant for determining the validity of the order. But in a case where subsequent event or conduct of member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining to the time when member has incurred disqualification, that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. Thus, in any case subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of the order impugned or for moulding the relief in a writ petition.
Thus, while dismissing the petition, the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the order of thr High Court rejecting the appellant’s application.