Courts cannot set deadline for Speaker to accept or reject MLA resignation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

A Constitutional Court cannot fix a timeframe for the speaker of the State legislative assembly to decide the issue of resignation tendered by the members of Legislative Assembly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled [Sh. Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Ors vs Hon'ble Speaker and Ors]..Justice Sandeep Sharma decided the question of law after there was a difference of opinion between Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua on whether the Court can fix a timeframe for the speaker’s decision.The single-judge explained that the speaker when deciding the question of resignations, acts as an officer of the State legislator. “In this capacity, the speaker is coequal to the constitutional court as a constitutional authority. In such like situations, constitutional courts respect the domain of other constitutional authorities as regards the roles specifically assigned to them under the constitution, which position has been already accepted by both the Hon’ble Judges while writing the separate judgment,” the Court said..The judgement was delivered in the case of independent lawmakers Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma and KL Thakur who had approached the Court for a direction to the speaker to immediately accept the resignations submitted by them on March 22.The division bench of Chief Justice Rao and Justice Dua on May 8 held that a court cannot direct the speaker to accept an MLA’s resignation. However, Justice Rao had ruled that a direction can be given to the speaker to decide the issue of genuineness of the resignations within two months. Since Chief Justice Rao did not agree with the fixing of timeframe, the matter was then placed before justice Sharma. .Pertinently, the resignations of the MLAs had since been accepted and they joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). However, the question of law was pending before the third judge.Justice Sharma examined whether the High Court under Article 226 can fix a time frame for the speaker's decision.He held that once the judges of the Division Bench had agreed that it was for the speaker to decide the genuineness of the resignations, there was no occasion for Justice Dua to fix the time frame. “This Court finds that when both the Hon’ble Judges were in agreement that relief, as sought for, cannot be granted, rather issue with regard to voluntariness or genuineness of the resignations can only be decided by the Speaker coupled with the fact that no prayer was ever made by the petitioners to direct the Speaker to decide their prayer for resignations in a time bound manner, there was no occasion for the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Dua, to fix timeframe, which was otherwise not permissible,” the Court said..It also explained that the speaker is empowered to conduct an inquiry in case of knowledge that the resignation tendered by a Member of the Legislative Assembly is not voluntary or genuine.It also found that though the law nowhere talks about specific timeframe for the speaker to take a decision on the resignation, the rules provide that if a member personally hands over resignation letter to the speaker and informs him that his resignation is voluntary and genuine and the Speaker has no information or knowledge to the contrary, he “may” accept the resignation immediately. However, in the present case, the Court noted that the then independent MLAs were accompanied by BJP leaders when they submitted the resignations.Had the independent MLAs not visited the office of Speaker with BJP MLAs, they would have been right to contend that the speaker ought to have accepted their resignation letters immediately, it added..It also opined that since word “may” has been used in the rules instead of “shall”, the discretion for accepting or rejecting the resignation letter remains with the speaker. “Since provisions contained under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 287 of the Rules specifically talks about the satisfaction of the Speaker with regard to voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation, the writ court cannot go into that aspect of the matter, rather decision, if any, given by the Speaker on the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation submitted by the member is subject to judicial review,” it added..Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with advocates Anshul Bansal, Ajay Vaidya, Prabhas Bajaj, Shriyek Sharda and Rangasaran Mohan represented the petitioners. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and KS Banyal with advocates Rohit Sharma, Udya Singh Banyal, Aprajita Jamwal, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani and Rishabh Parikh represented the speaker.Senior Advocate Ankush Dass Sood and advocate Arjun Lal represented the Election Commission of India.[Read Judgment]