Rajasthan Political Crisis: Hearing in plea challenging merger of BSP MLAs with Congress adjourned to August 13, HC to pass orders

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear on August 13 the challenge to a Rajasthan High Court order refusing to interfere with the merger of six Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MLAs with the Congress party in the state. .The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari took up for hearing a petition challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court to dispose of the pleas filed by MLA Madan Dilawar and the BSP assailing the merger of the MLAs with the Congress in the Rajasthan Assembly..In light of the fact that the Single Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is scheduled to hear the plea filed by Dilawar and BSP today at 2 PM, the Supreme Court has deferred the hearing in the case till August 13..In September last year, Speaker of the Rajasthan Assembly CP Joshi had accepted the merger of six BSP MLAs with the Congress party.Senior Counsel Harish Salve, representing Dilawar, told the Court that the September 2019 order of the Speaker was assailed before the High Court given that the Supreme Court held that the question of merger of parties cannot be decided in abstract..He argued that the disqualification against these MLAs was dismissed on technical grounds. On being asked why the Apex Court must delve into the merits of the case, Salve argued that it has been held in the past that orders cannot be passed under Para 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution..The BSP itself has also opposed the merger of six of its MLAs with the Congress party. Advocate SC Misra, representing the party, said that the MLAs sought the merger and the same was ordered for by the Speaker without jurisdiction. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgments, Misra argued that a merger has to be preceded by a split under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Assembly Rules.This condition was not fulfilled, and a petition seeking disqualification of these six BSP MLAs was dismissed in light of Rule 8, which permits only members of the House to move such petitions..After hearing the parties, the Bench adjourned the case till August 13 in order to allow the High Court to pass orders..The Rajasthan Assembly Speaker was represented by Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, while Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented one of the six BSP MLAs..Advocate Amit Pai, representing the six BSP MLAs who had moved the Apex Court for transfer of the matter from the Rajasthan High Court to the Apex Court, withdrew this transfer plea..Speaker Joshi's move to acceptthe merger of six BSP MLAs with the Congress party last year came under challenge before the High Court. A Single Judge Bench of the High Court, while issuing notice to the Speaker in the petition filed by BJP, had directed for a reply to be given by August 11. .The order of the Speaker, however, was not stayed by the Single Judge Bench, and the six BSP MLAs were not restrained from attending the proceedings of the House as Congress legislators. .This was appealed against before the Division Bench, which had also refused to stay the Speaker's decision allowing the functioning of the BSP MLAs as Congress functionaries. The matter was subsequently remitted to the Single Judge..It is the case of the petitioners before the Supreme Court that the merger of the six BSP MLAs with the Congress is bad in law and unconstitutional as it goes against the principles laid down in various cases. The petition filed through Advocate Ashutosh Ghade says,."The Petitioner assiled the order before the Division Bench wherein the impugned order came to be passed. The Petitioner assails the order as the order dated 18.09.2019 is non –est and is unsustainable in the eyes of law due to the dicta laid down by this Hon’ble Court.".In a subsequent development, the six BSP MLAs also moved the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of Dilawar's petition from the Rajasthan High Court to the Supreme Court on the grounds that similar matters are pending before the Apex Court..This petition has invoked Article 139A(1) of the Constitution of India which gives the Supreme Court power to withdraw to itself any pending case from before the High Court. It states,."the writ petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court has raised the identical question which is already pending consiederation in Mr. Mithou Krose v. Imtilemba Sangtam & Ors... FOR THAT there is an urgent need to clarify the law in respect to the scope and purport of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, to ensure that there are no conflicting judgments, involving substantial questions of interpretation of the Constitution, by an interpretation by this Hon’ble Court.".(Read Order)