SPEAKER’S ACCEPTANCE OF MLA RESIGNATION
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a split decision on whether it can direct the speaker of the Himachal Pradesh Assembly to accept resignation letters from MLAs within a specified time frame.
In their ruling, Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao refused to interfere with the Speaker’s decision, but Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua gave the Speaker two weeks to decide on the resignation.
THE CASE
The case pertains to the Rajya Sabha elections for the single vacant seat in the Congress-ruled Himachal Pradesh which took place in February 2024. In the elections, BJP-candidate Harsh Mahajan unexpectedly beat Congress-candidate senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
This happened as six Congress MLAs rebelled and switched sides in the final moments leading up to the voting, and three independent MLAs —
The show cause notice was contested by these MLAs in the HC.
THE LAW
Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution states that a seat will become vacant if an MLA submits their resignation to the Speaker and it is accepted.
However, the article also allows the Speaker to conduct an inquiry and refuse to accept a resignation unless they are satisfied that it is “voluntary or genuine”.
Rule 287 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly provides guardrails for the Speaker’s powers. If the letter of resignation is personally handed over to the Speaker (as it was in this case), and the members inform the Speaker that the resignation was voluntary and genuine, Rule 287 states that the Speaker “may accept the resignation immediately”. But if the Speaker is not satisfied that the resignation is voluntary or genuine, she is allowed to not accept the resignation.
| CHIEF JUSTICE RAO
Chief Justice Rao cited several previous Supreme Court decisions that refused to fetter or interfere with the powers of a Speaker as she is a constitutional authority. For instance, in Pratap Gouda Patil v. State of Karnataka (2019), the apex court explicitly refused to give a time frame for the Speaker to deal with the resignations of 15 members of the Karnataka Assembly. |
JUSTICE DUA
On the other hand, Justice Dua held that the court could direct the Speaker to arrive at a “prompt decision” if she takes an unreasonable amount of time to exercise her powers and duties. Justice Dua relied on the five-judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), where the court disqualified 13 Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MLAs after holding that the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly had failed to decide disqualification petitions against the MLAs. |
Note: Connect with Vajirao & Reddy Institute to keep yourself updated with latest UPSC Current Affairs in English.
Note: We upload Current Affairs Except Sunday.
