Judgment :- Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. The petitioners, who were Members of the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly, have questioned the order dated 10th October 2010 passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, disqualifying them from being the members of the Legislative Assembly on the ground of violation of paragraph-2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, by filing these writ petitions. On such disqualification, the respective constituencies represented by the petitioners in the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly have fallen vacant. The total strength of the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly is 225 seats. The petitioners herein were elected as members of the Assembly otherwise than as candidates set up by any political party (hereinafter called as “independent members”). 2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 in W.P.Nos.32674-32678/2010 and W.P.Nos.33998-34002/2010 were elected from Kanakagiri, Hiriyur, Hosadurga, Pavagada and Malavalli Assembly constituencies respectively. After the election, the Bharatiya Janatha Party (hereinafter called ‘BJP’ for short) which was the single largest party, was invited to form the Government. Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa, who was elected as Leader of BJP Legislative Party was sworn in as the Chief Minister. The petitioners who were elected as independent members declared their support to the BJP Legislature party leader for the formation of Government. They were also inducted into the Council of Ministers by administering the oath of office. They continued to be a part of the ruling dispensation till 6.10.2010, on which day they gave a representation to the Governor of Karnataka informing him that they have withdrawn the support to the Government headed by Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa on certain grounds. On the same day i.e. 6.10.2010 Sri. D.N. Jeevaraj – Chief Whip, Bharathiya Janatha Party and Sri. C.T. Ravi, Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and General Secretary of BJP, the first and third respondents in W.P.Nos.32674-32678/2010 (hereinafter called as ‘complainants’) filed a petition (hereinafter called as ‘complaint’ for clarity) with the Speaker of the Karnataka Vidhana Sabha requesting him to disqualify the petitioners on the ground of defection, which was numbered as Disqualification Complaint No.2/2010 (hereinafter called as ‘complaint’). The said complaint states that the petitioners herein joined BJP so as to enable the formation of the Government and were sworn in as Ministers. The said complaint states that the petitioners herein joined BJP so as to enable the formation of the Government and were sworn in as Ministers. Pursuant to the said complaint seeking for disqualification of the petitioners, the Speaker issued notices to the petitioners on 8.10.2010 calling upon them to show cause before 5 p.m. on 10.10.2010 as to why they should not be disqualified in view of the allegations found in the complaint. The petitioners sent an interim reply to the show cause notice on 9.10.2010 and prayed for seven days time for filing detailed statement of objections. However on 10.10.2010 the Speaker passed the impugned order after hearing the learned advocates representing the petitioners and the complainants. As aforementioned, by the impugned order the petitioners were disqualified on the ground of defection as per paragraph-2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 3. In the meanwhile i.e., on 9.10.2010 five voters, one each from five aforementioned assembly constituencies also filed complaints before the Speaker of the Karnataka Vidhana Sabha praying for disqualification of the petitioners on the ground of defection. Those complaints were numbered as Disqualification Complaint Nos.3 to 7/2010 (hereinafter called as ‘complainants/voters). Those five complaints filed by the voters and the complaints filed by the complainants were clubbed, heard the decided by a common order on 10.10.2010 as aforementioned. 4. Writ Petition Nos.32674-78/2010 are filed questioning the order passed by the Speaker of Karnataka Vidhana Sabha in Disqualification Complaint No.2/2010, whereas W.P.Nos.33998-34002/2010 are filed questioning the order passed in Disqualification Complainant Nos.3 to 7/2010. Since both sets of writ petitions arise out of the common order and as the facts are common in both the sets of writ petitions, they are clubbed, heard and decided together. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RIVAL PARTIES : 5. It is argued by Sri. Since both sets of writ petitions arise out of the common order and as the facts are common in both the sets of writ petitions, they are clubbed, heard and decided together. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RIVAL PARTIES : 5. It is argued by Sri. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as, the same is passed ignoring the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Laws ; that the action of the Speaker disqualifying the petitioners is an example of blatant disregard to the rule of law and the constitutional set up; that the principles of natural justice are violated; that the provisions of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ‘Disqualification Rules’, for short) are ignored with utter contempt; that the petitioners have neither joined BJP expressly or impliedly; that the behaviour and conduct of the petitioners clearly reveal that they remained independent and have not joined any political party, much less, BJP; that in order to ensure that the petitioners are prevented from voting in the Vidhana Sabha on the Confidence Motion which was scheduled on 11.10.2010 moved by the Chief Minister, the impugned order came to be passed hurriedly in total disregard to the rule of law on the previous day; that notices of hearing were not at all served on the petitioners, but were pasted on the doors of the rooms allotted to the petitioners in the Legislators’ Home; however as an abundant caution, the interim reply was submitted by the petitioners on 9.10.2010 seeking seven days’ time for filing detailed statement of objections; only two days’ time is given to reply, that too, without serving the copy of the petitions with Annexures; consequently, the petitioners could not file their detailed reply to substantiate their case before the Speaker; and in view of the above, the whole proceedings are vitiated. 6. Sri. P.P. Rao, elaborating the aforementioned pointed submitted that: In Complaint No.2/2010 filed by Mr. 6. Sri. P.P. Rao, elaborating the aforementioned pointed submitted that: In Complaint No.2/2010 filed by Mr. D.N. Jeevaraj and C.T. Ravi (complainants), there is no reference at all to the whip said to have been issued to the petitioners, but in Complaint Nos.3/2010 to 7/2010 filed by the voters, at the end of paragraph-3 there is an averment that the petitioners have received whips directing them regularly to vote in favour of the party and there are documents to show the same; however, no document has been annexed to the said petitions. In the impugned order, the Speaker relied on copies of the whips produced at the hearing, without furnishing copies to the petitioners and affording opportunity to respond to the same. The Speaker also failed to notice the material fact that in the Complaint No.2/2010 filed by Sri. D.N. Jeevaraj, the Chief Whip of BJP, though himself is the complainant, did not rely on the said whips at all. The whips relied on were not issued to the petitioners describing them as Member of BJP, but as Ministers in the BJP led Government. The whip dated 28.7.2009 was issued to a Member of the Assembly of the ruling party, whereas the whip dated 23.12.2009 was addressed to the petitioners as Ministers and not as members of the BJP Legislature Party. Having extended support to the BJP Government and accepted Ministership, they were bound to vote for the Government whenever the occasion arose. In this background, the whips sent to the petitioners herein, who were independent MLAs. And Ministers, can only be considered as intimation of the fact of issuance of whip to the party members and a request to other supporting independent MLAs. To vote in the Assembly on the date mentioned therein. The sending of copies of whips to independent Ministers was the unilateral act of the Chief Whip. Mere receipt of the Whips cannot be regarded as voluntary conduct on the part of the independent members of joining the BJP. Moreover, if the whips were addressed to the petitioners considering them as Members of the BJP, it was equally incumbent upon the Chief Whip to have mandatorily provided information of their joining the BJP to the Speaker under Rule 3 of the Disqualification Rules, which he did not. Moreover, if the whips were addressed to the petitioners considering them as Members of the BJP, it was equally incumbent upon the Chief Whip to have mandatorily provided information of their joining the BJP to the Speaker under Rule 3 of the Disqualification Rules, which he did not. This shows, the Chief Whip at the time of issuing the said whips himself never considered the petitioners to be Members of the BJP. In any event, the whips so issued do not show that the petitioners had joined the BJP after Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa became Chief Minister and before they became Ministers on 30.5.2008 which is the case pleaded in the complaints before the Speaker. Sri. D.N. Jeevaraj having not even mentioned in his Complaint No.2/2010 about the whips, cannot rely on them in his statement of objections to the writ petitions. The voters only mentioned about the whips in their Complaint Nos.3/2010 to 6/2010, but did not annex the copies of the whips. The Speaker also relied on the proceedings of the BJP Legislature Party meetings held on different dates, but did not deliberately advert to the crucial fact that in all the said proceedings, the petitioners and one other independent MLA were shown as a separate group and in most of the proceedings, they were shown under the heading, ‘Independent Co-Members’. The proceedings of the BJP Legislature Party meetings, far from substantiating the plea in the Complaints seeking for disqualification that the petitioners had joined the BJP after the formation of BJP Government and before becoming Ministers in the same Government on 30.5.2008, would demolish the case of the complainants, inasmuch as the proceedings clearly show that the petitioners were admittedly “Independent co-members” and were a separate group, shown as such after the names of 110 BJP members and one nominated member. The voters have no locus standi to file the Complaints for disqualification in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Disqualification Rules. Only a Member of the Assembly can file such complaints against any other member. The right to complain about defection by a Member of the Assembly on any ground is not a common law right but a statutory right governed by statutory provisions. The conduct which amounted to joining a political party or voluntarily giving up membership of the parent party in the cases relied on by the Speaker is based on admitted/undisputed facts. The right to complain about defection by a Member of the Assembly on any ground is not a common law right but a statutory right governed by statutory provisions. The conduct which amounted to joining a political party or voluntarily giving up membership of the parent party in the cases relied on by the Speaker is based on admitted/undisputed facts. When mala fides have been alleged against the Speaker in the interim reply dated 9.10.2010 filed by the petitioners, which are reiterated in the writ petition, the Speaker ought to have filed a reply thereto. Neither the Speaker nor the Chief Minister has denied the allegations made by the petitioners in their letter dated 6.10.2010 to the Governor and in their interim reply dated 9.10.2010 submitted to the Speaker. Therefore, adverse inference has necessarily to be drawn against them. Disqualification Rules are to be treated as part of the Tenth Schedule for purposes of construction and obligations. When power is conferred and procedure is prescribed, the power must be exercised in accordance with the procedure. The Disqualification Rules like any statutory Rules or Administrative Instructions lay down norms and any deviation therefrom violates Articles-14. Disqualification Rules are mandatory, as without them the Tenth Schedule cannot be given effect at all. In any event, assuming without admitting that the Rules are directory, they require substantial compliance. If there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, High Court is bound to follow the larger Bench decision. Reliance on new materials produced during the hearing without giving opportunity to the petitioners to deal with them violates Rule 7(3) of the Disqualification Rules and the law declared. The impugned order of disqualification involved civil consequences to the petitioners and it could not have been made without observing the principles of natural justice. Refusal/failure to consider relevant and authentic materials available with the Speaker under Rules 3 and 4 of the Disqualification Rules and taking into consideration wholly irrelevant material which is subsequent to the date of alleged defection vitiates the impugned order of the Speaker. Impugned order of the Speaker must be judged by reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the form of affidavit or otherwise. That, every independent MLA is like a political party consisting of a single member. Impugned order of the Speaker must be judged by reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the form of affidavit or otherwise. That, every independent MLA is like a political party consisting of a single member. Independents joining the Ministry headed by the single largest party in the Legislature, is nothing but extending support from outside the party. Such act does not incur disqualification as it does not amount to joining the BJP. It is a coalition of BJP and independent Members. The impugned order is vitiated by mala fide action of the Chief Minister, Speaker and the complainants. The facts clearly show that the concerted effort made by the Chief Minister, Speaker and the complainants to get the petitioners disqualified, is a blatant abuse of the power conferred by the provisions of the Tenth Schedule in order to prevent them from participating in the Trust Vote held on 11.10.2010 and voting against the Motion of Confidence. All of them are guilty of male fides. No other hypothesis can explain filing of such frivolous petitions by the Chief Whip, Secretary of the party and the five voters, who were used as tools to implement the design stated above, alleging that the petitioners had incurred the disqualification before 30.5.2008 i.e. before they became Ministers. The above order of disqualification is liable to be quashed being male fide and fraud on power. The Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 7 did not file statement of objections to W.P.Nos.33998-34002/2010. On the contrary, they have on oath disowned the complaints seeking disqualification and exposed the fraud played on them by the concerned respondents. The evidence on record does not at all support the basic plea that the petitioners had joined the BJP and thereafter joined the ministry. The only irresistible inference that can be drawn is that the entire proceedings for disqualification were pre-planned and stage managed knowing fully well that the alleged ground of disqualification was non-existent, wholly imaginary, frivolous, vexatious, undemocratic and malicious. The Speaker’s order is liable to be quashed with strictures in the most stringent terms possible and the writ petitions be allowed with punitive costs so that such anti-people and anti-democratic actions are not repeated in the State of Karnataka in the future. He relied upon certain judgments which would be adverted to depending on their relevance during the curse of this judgment. He relied upon certain judgments which would be adverted to depending on their relevance during the curse of this judgment. Finally, it was argued that in the event of the order of disqualification being set aside, as a consequence thereof, all consequential actions and orders may be declared void and quashed. 7. Sri. K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners reiterating the contentions urged by Sri. P.P. Rao submits that the Assembly was constituted on 28th May 2008 and the Ministry was formed on 30th May 2008; that according to the complainants, the petitioners herein have joined BJP in between 28th May and 30th May of 2008 i.e., prior to the date on which they were sworn in as Ministers; that the date of joining the party is fixed date and subsequent events cannot be taken into consideration; and that the petitioners have not joined BJP at any point of time, inasmuch as, the alleged act of joining the party cannot be a floating event so as to have happened on several days; since the independently elected members are disqualified, the five constituencies have remained without any representative in the Assembly. He further submits that the appreciation of evidence in such matters should not be limited to the preponderance of probabilities. He has pressed into service certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the decisions which will be adverted to at a later stage. 8. Sri. Satyapal Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainants, both of whom are BJP MLAs, submits that the matters needs to be considered keeping in mind the object with which Tenth Schedule was inserted by Fifty-Second Amendment to the Constitution of India. 8. Sri. Satyapal Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainants, both of whom are BJP MLAs, submits that the matters needs to be considered keeping in mind the object with which Tenth Schedule was inserted by Fifty-Second Amendment to the Constitution of India. He submits that the “joining” of a political party is different from “becoming” the member of the political party; that the wordings used in sub-para (1) of Para-2 of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India are “belonging to a political party” or “becoming a member of the political party” and whereas, in sub-para (2) of Para-2 of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the wordings used are “joining the political party”; that having regard to the intention with which Tenth Schedule is inserted, the word “joining the political party” should be construed liberally than the word “becoming or belonging to a political party”; that under Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India, an elected member of a legislative assembly or council shall be disqualified under five contingencies; however, a member of the legislative assembly or council shall be disqualified under Article 191(1) of the Constitution if her is so disqualified under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution; and that Article 192 of the Constitution clarified that the Governor of the State has jurisdiction to disqualify the member of the Legislature of the State in case if such member falls within one of the five categories mentioned in Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India; but, while taking a decision under Article 192 of the Constitution, the Governor cannot act independently, inasmuch as, he has to get the opinion of the Election Commission and only after getting such opinion, the Governor shall act according to such opinion, i.e., the Governor is bound by the decision of the Election Commission in the matter of disqualifying the member of the house of the Legislature of State while acting under Article 191(1) of the Constitution of India. But such restriction is not imposed by the Constitution on the Speaker of the House while taking decision under Para-6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. This clearly means that the Constitution makers had complete faith on the Speaker in the matter of passing the order of disqualification. 9. But such restriction is not imposed by the Constitution on the Speaker of the House while taking decision under Para-6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. This clearly means that the Constitution makers had complete faith on the Speaker in the matter of passing the order of disqualification. 9. The Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 are framed pursuant to Para-8 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Since the said rules deal with procedure, the Courts may not be justified in inquiring into the alleged violation of the procedure by the Speaker while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, the proceedings leading to the impugned order relating to disqualification are deemed to be the proceedings in the Legislature of the State in view of para 6 (2) of Tenth Schedule. In other words, Sri. Satyapal Jain, submits that the Courts will not interfere with the Speaker’s order even if it is passed in contravention of the procedure. According to him, though sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Disqualification Rules states that the member against whom the disqualification complaint is filed shall within seven days of receipt of such copies of the disqualification complaint, forward his opinion thereon to the Speaker, the same should not be construed as that the Speaker has to wait mandatorily for seven days. The word “within seven days” means “up to seven days”. Under the given circumstances, for the reasons to be recorded, seven days time also can be extended. However, it is not mandatory on the part of the Speaker to wait for seven days. He may even grant lesser period to the member to offer his comments; the question to be considered is as to whether a member is afforded with a reasonable opportunity of being heard or not and as to whether he was given opportunity to offer his comments or not. In the matter on hand, the petitioners have voluntarily offered their comments on 9.10.2010 in detail covering all the averments made in the complaints seeking disqualification and reference is also made to the Annexures. They were also given opportunity of oral hearing, inasmuch as, the advocates for the petitioners argued at length before the Speaker on 10.10.2010. In the matter on hand, the petitioners have voluntarily offered their comments on 9.10.2010 in detail covering all the averments made in the complaints seeking disqualification and reference is also made to the Annexures. They were also given opportunity of oral hearing, inasmuch as, the advocates for the petitioners argued at length before the Speaker on 10.10.2010. Since the petitioners themselves through their advocate have voluntarily appeared before the Speaker on 9th October 2010 and have furnished their detailed comments, it cannot be said that they have not been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. He further submits that seven factors are against the petitioners viz., (a) The act of becoming Ministers in the BJP Government, (b) Receiving whips from the Chief Whip of BJP Legislature Party, (c) Attending BJP functions, (d) Attending BJP Legislature party meetings, (e) Submitting the memorandum along with disqualified 11 BJP MLAs to the Governor, against the Chief Minister, (f) Filing of Writ Petition Nos.32674-78/2010 which contain almost the similar averments as found in the memorandum of writ petitions filed by 11 disqualified BJP MLAs. (g) In the comments offered by the petitioners before the Speaker, they have stated that “they have left the Government in the interest of BJP.” It is further contended, the very fact that the petitioners had offered their comments in detail on 9.10.2010, that too adverting to all the documents produced by the complainants, itself goes to show that the petitioners were served with all the documents apart from the copy of the complaint seeking disqualification. Since the petitioners were not to be found either at Bangalore or in their respective native places on 8th and 9th of October 2010, the show cause notices along with disqualification complaints and the documents were pasted on the doors of their respective rooms in the Legislators’ Home, which amounts to sufficient service. The petitioners admit that the notices were pasted at the rooms of their respective doors at the Legislators’ Home. They do not dispute that they have attended the Legislature party meetings and have received the whips and have also attended the BJP meetings. It is not the case of the petitioners that they wanted to produce any additional material before the Speaker. The same proves that the petitioners did not have anything more to say in the matter before the Speaker. It is not the case of the petitioners that they wanted to produce any additional material before the Speaker. The same proves that the petitioners did not have anything more to say in the matter before the Speaker. On the other hand, the Speaker has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law and well established procedure; hence there is no violation of rules of natural justice and that the action of the Speaker is in consonance with the intention with which Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is inserted. He further submitted that, an application to disqualify a member of Legislative Assembly or Council is maintainable even if such application is filed by any citizen, inasmuch as, such a person need not to be a member of the Legislative Assembly or Council as the case may be. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Disqualification Rules are to be treated as directory in nature having regard to the intent of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Moreover, Disqualification Rules merely prescribe the procedure that is to be followed by the Speaker. Since the contents of the documents produced by the contesting respondents are not denied either before the Speaker or before this Court, but are admitted by the petitioners herein and are sought to be explained only, it is clear that the petitioners have not retained their identity as independent members of the Legislative Assembly. If really the petitioners were not belonging to BJP, they could not and should not have attended the meetings of BJP as well as its Legislature Party meeting, inasmuch as, the definition of ‘Legislature Party’ as contained in Paragraph-1 of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution clearly reveals that the Legislature Party in relation to a member of a House belonging to any particular party in accordance with the provisions of paragraph-2 or paragraph-4, means the group consisting of all the members of that House for the time being, belonging to that political party. In the instant case, the Government in Karnataka is that of BJP and not coalition Government where different political parties would join together and form the Government, but would have the legislature party of their own political party. In the instant case, the Government in Karnataka is that of BJP and not coalition Government where different political parties would join together and form the Government, but would have the legislature party of their own political party. But in so far as independents are concerned, that situation would not arise and the moment they support a Government formed by a political party by joining the Ministry, they loose their independent character and become members of the political party, since what is contemplated under paragraph 2(2) is the conduct of joining. As held by the Supreme Court, the formalities of filling up applications, paying the membership fee etc., are not necessary since such act of joining is to be gathered from the conduct. Joining the ministry and thereafter participating in the legislature party meetings and also the public meetings with BJP leaders is enough to infer that they have joined BJP. Attending the Legislature Party meeting has not been denied. If it was outside support, they should neither join the ministry nor attend the Legislature Party meetings. If such a view about joining is not taken, it would defeat the very object of paragraph 2(2) in Tenth Schedule and as such to achieve the object, the conduct of joining should be given the widest connotation. Therefore, while considering such conduct, the Speaker is entitled to look into all materials including his personal knowledge, as he is the best person to know the conduct of all the members of the house with whom he would have interaction on regular basis. To dispel the inference of their conduct from the materials on record, the petitioners have not produced any contrary material either before the speaker or before this Court nor did they utilize the opportunity granted to them by the Speaker to appear before him. Hence, all acts from the point of joining the ministry to the date of the order by the Speaker can be considered cumulatively. The proceedings being not adversarial in nature, the Speaker need not limit himself to what has been stated in the complaint before him, but should draw inference from the materials available as also personal knowledge. Hence, all acts from the point of joining the ministry to the date of the order by the Speaker can be considered cumulatively. The proceedings being not adversarial in nature, the Speaker need not limit himself to what has been stated in the complaint before him, but should draw inference from the materials available as also personal knowledge. Once it is brought to the notice of the Speaker, the complainant looses the right even to withdraw the complaint and the Speaker will have to take it to its logical conclusion and during such consideration, the date of incurring the disqualification can even be a different one from that which was projected in the petition. Irrespective of all other technicalities, the important criteria is as to whether they have retained the independent character. In that regard, the entire conduct can be taken into consideration. If that has been done by the Speaker, it will not call for interference. Only if the inference drawn by Speaker is so perverse, that no reasonable person would arrive at such conclusion, it can be interfered and not otherwise. The Speaker has recorded finding by taking law, facts and conduct into consideration. Such finding by a Constitutional Authority should not be interfered lightly. Even if the procedure followed by the Speaker is not appropriate, the Speaker is required to decide expeditiously to achieve the object of Tenth Schedule. When the Speaker has considered all aspects, even if this Court has a different view, the same should not be substituted but the matter at the most can only be remanded to the Speaker. 10. Sri B.N. Narasimha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that while deciding the matter relating to disqualification, the importance of freedom of speech of an individual member vis-à-vis the stability of the Government would have to be considered. Among them, the latter becomes important in view of the object with which the Tenth Schedule is inserted. The court must defer to the Constitution and examine as to whether the action is within the Tenth Schedule. The rules should be interpreted to achieve the object of the Constitution since the Rules are only directory and are subservient. In the case of defection, the evil is so great that the action by the Speaker should be immediate. The court must defer to the Constitution and examine as to whether the action is within the Tenth Schedule. The rules should be interpreted to achieve the object of the Constitution since the Rules are only directory and are subservient. In the case of defection, the evil is so great that the action by the Speaker should be immediate. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was contended that the principles of natural justice should be interpreted in such a manner so that it should enable the Speaker to discharge his function keeping in view the scenario in question. Hence, Tenth Schedule cannot be examined in a technical manner, but it should sub¬serve the purpose for which it is enacted. Reference was made to De Smith’s Judicial Review and Wade’s Administrative Law to contend that urgency depends on situation. By referring to an analogous provision in Article 192(1) of the Constitution enabling any person to complain to the Governor to the consideration of that aspect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he contended that even a voter can complain to the Speaker. 11. Sri A.G. Holla, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos. 33998-34002/2010 i.e., one of the voters who complained against one of the petitioners, contended that the voter has locus standi to make complaint to the speaker. The Constitution by Tenth Schedule has given such right and the same cannot be whittled down by a Rule framed by the speaker. In this regard, decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are relied on to contend that since the interest of the constituency is involved, the voter is an interested person. Decisions are also relied on to contend that if Rules are framed and if any particular Rule takes away the right available under the Constitution itself, such Rule is repugnant as the vested right cannot be taken away. The voter Sri Krishna Naika made the complaint against Sri Venkataramanappa and verified the contents. Show cause notice was issued by the Speaker and by consent of all the parties, all the matters were taken together, since the issues involved were same. The learned Senior Advocate also pointed out that said Sri Venkataramanappa had attended the BJP Legislature Party meeting and had signed the register. Even if he is shown as co-member, the same means that they are of the same status. The learned Senior Advocate also pointed out that said Sri Venkataramanappa had attended the BJP Legislature Party meeting and had signed the register. Even if he is shown as co-member, the same means that they are of the same status. The Speaker after providing opportunity has passed the order, which is as per law. 12. Sri S. Vijayashankar, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Speaker clarified at the outset that though the Speaker has been impleaded as the Tribunal and also in his personal capacity, the affidavit filed is to controvert the allegations of mala fide made against him personally. In so far as the order passed in the capacity as a tribunal, thee is no need for him to justify the same since it is for the parties concerned to do the same. It is contended that the allegation of mala fide has been denied. Even if it is not denied, it is for the Court to consider the same on its own by examining as to whether the allegation of mala fides has been established. The verifying affidavit of one of the petitioners filed on behalf of all the petitioners is vague and does not indicate as to which of the statements have been made on personal knowledge and which of it is based on information. The source of information is also not disclosed. In that regard, reference is made to Order 19 Rule 3 CPC and the Writ Proceedings Rules to contend regarding the requisite nature of the affidavit. It is contended that when allegations are made against Constitutional Authority, the same should be made with responsibility. The fact that they did not raise lack of confidence before the Speaker if they had knowledge of his bias, would show that it is only an afterthought after participating in the proceedings without demur. The retraction made before this Court by three voters by filing affidavits in these petitions, shows that it is only a last ditch attempt of the loosing litigants. The Speaker has denied the allegations and even if not denied, no adverse inference can be drawn. In any event, the scope of proceedings before the Speaker is only to consider the comments and provides no right for hearing. The decision of the Supreme Court is relied on to contend regarding the limited power of judicial review. 13. The Speaker has denied the allegations and even if not denied, no adverse inference can be drawn. In any event, the scope of proceedings before the Speaker is only to consider the comments and provides no right for hearing. The decision of the Supreme Court is relied on to contend regarding the limited power of judicial review. 13. Sri Naganand, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents No.3, 5 and 7 i.e., the voters who were the three complainants seeking disqualification before the Speaker in Complaint Nos.3 to 7/2010 contended that the affidavit of respondent No.7 is not controverted by the Speaker. It is alleged in the affidavit with regard to the sequence resulting in the filing of the complaint and that the speaker himself had arranged for drafting the same. The said respondents had no such intention of filing the complaint. The copy of the order sheet is referred to contend that notice was directed to the complainants as well, but, no such notice was issued. If such notice was served, such complainant would have appeared and would have informed the speaker that they did not wish to prosecute the complaint. The copy of the complaint itself is referred to contend that the nature of details mentioned therein would establish that it was prepared in Speaker’s Office as otherwise a voter from a remote area would not be aware of the details contained therein. The contents are similar in all complaints and the printouts are similar to one another and as such it would not be difficult to infer. As soon as the said respondents received the notices from this Court, they have appeared and made their stand clear and therefore, it is not an afterthought. To verify all these aspects, the records of the proceedings before the Speaker is very much necessary and if the same is not produced, it should shock the conscience of this Court, so as to call for interference. 14. Sri. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, in reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, reiterated the contentions relating to violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Sri. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, in reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, reiterated the contentions relating to violation of principles of natural justice. It was contended that the respondents sought to rely on the materials which were not before the Speaker and on all these aspect only the records of the proceedings before the Speaker will disclose the true state of affairs and as such the records should be summoned and perused. Though the petitioners filed a reply, the same was only interim reply and as such time should have been granted. But, the Speaker was in a hurry and denied opportunity only with a view that the vote of confidence should be manipulated by creating artificial majority. Rules 3 and 4 of Rules 1986 were not followed by incorporating the names in the Register maintained by the Speaker, which, if perused by the Speaker from his own records, would have conclusively established the question in dispute. 15. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Advocate continuing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the contention of the complainants that the petitioners have incurred disqualification by joining the Ministry, cannot be accepted. It is his contention that even though the petitioners were sworn in as Ministers on 30.05.2008, they had not taken oath in terms of Article 188 of the Constitution and as such they could not have incurred disqualification on that day as claimed. The concept of coalition Government has to be kept in view as otherwise it would have far reaching consequences. Tenth Schedule does not refer to joining the Government. On the other hand, Article 164 (1B) provides regarding joining the Ministry, which does not prohibit the independents. Paragraph 2(2) of Tenth Schedule only prohibits joining a political party and there is no disqualification, if one attends a legislature party meeting. With reference to the proceedings sheet maintained by the Speaker, it was contended that the reference therein is only with regard to complaint by the MLA’s and not to the complaint by the voters. In that complaint by the voters, the petitioners herein have not been served. The letter of support given by the petitioners and the letter forwarding the same to the Governor states that they are independents. In that complaint by the voters, the petitioners herein have not been served. The letter of support given by the petitioners and the letter forwarding the same to the Governor states that they are independents. The leader of the legislature party himself has considered them to be independents and the Minister who were independents have not been assigned ‘District incharge’ as a matter of policy. The statements of the Chief Minister to that effect in the newspaper were referred. The conduct of certain other MLA’s of other parties who had joined the BJP and thereafter got re-elected was pointed out to contend that the same procedure was not followed in the case of petitioners as they remained independent throughout. Even according to the respondents, the cause of action was the date of joining the ministry and 2½ years have elapsed since then. Though no limitation is prescribed, the power can be exercised only within a reasonable period. The statements of Chief Minister, which had appeared in newspapers relating to the independent status of the petitioners were all materials to be produced before the Speaker, if sufficient opportunity was available and as such there is prejudice. One of the petitioners Sri Shivaraj Thangadagi had in fact been expelled from the BJP for contesting as rebel; therefore, he could not have joined the party without the same being revoked. Though representation was made to the Speaker for opportunity and the reply filed was without prejudice the Speaker has proceeded further in the matter. Hence, the order is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 16. Sri M.B. Nargund, learned counsel appearing for the complainants in his reply contended that there is no scope to distinguish the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have been relied by the contesting respondents. The Rules, procedure and the nature of proceedings before the Speaker have all been considered in the cited decisions and the same remain applicable even at this stage. In answer to the contention that once would become a member only on taking oath, it is pointed out that one becomes a member on the certificate of election being issued as provided under the Conduct of Election Rules 1961. It is pointed out that delay cannot be pleaded in proceedings under Tenth Schedule as the dispute is not between the persons having conflicting rights. It is pointed out that delay cannot be pleaded in proceedings under Tenth Schedule as the dispute is not between the persons having conflicting rights. The statements attributed to the Chief Minister as appearing in the newspaper about the independent status of the petitioners, cannot be relied on since the Chief Minister was not the complainant before the Speaker, nor was he originally a party to these proceedings. The petitioners cannot make out any grievance with regard to non-service of notice since the counsel who represented them has made an endorsement in the order sheet of the proceedings acknowledging receipt of notice, petition and documents. The learned counsel therefore reiterated that the Speaker after following the procedure and on affording opportunity has arrived at his conclusion, which does not call for interference. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: 17. In the above backdrop, we are of the opinion that the following questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions:- i) Whether the complaints filed by five voters in respect of five constituencies seeking disqualification of the five petitioners are maintainable or not? ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Speaker suffers from the vice of non-compliance with Rules of natural justice? iii) Whether the impugned order is in violation of constitutional mandate or mala fide or is it perverse? ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTS, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TENTH SCHEDULE: 18. Having heard the learned Advocates and before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that the Apex Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachilhu, ( AIR 1993 SC 412 ) while considering the question of validity of Fifty-Second Amendment to the Constitution which brought the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution into force, and the question of power of judicial review has ruled that the scope of judicial review under Articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in respect of an order passed by the Speaker/Chairman of the House under paragraph-6 would be confined to jurisdictional errors only, viz., (a) infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandate (b) mala fides (c) non-compliance with Rules of natural justice and (d) perversity. It is also held in the said judgment that the power to resolve such dispute vested in the Speaker/Chairman, is a judicial power and the Speaker/Chairman acts as a Tribunal while deciding the matter. It is also held in the said judgment that the power to resolve such dispute vested in the Speaker/Chairman, is a judicial power and the Speaker/Chairman acts as a Tribunal while deciding the matter. In the very judgment it is expressed that the Speaker/Chairman holds pivotal position in the scheme of parliamentary democracy and is a guardian of the rights and privileges of the House. He is expected to and do take far reaching decisions in the functioning of parliamentary democracy. 19. Since the entire scheme of Tenth Schedule would be relevant to consider the above questions, it would be beneficial to look reasons and objects with which Tenth Schedule is inserted in the Constitution by Fifty-Second Amendment. It seems, failure of the political parties in the 1967¬elections to secure absolute majority to enable any of them to form the Government at the Centre as well as in the States gave rise to wide-spread political defections by elected M.P.s. and M.L.As. Absence of a strong law on registration of political parties further accentuated the problem. Reportedly, some M.L.As. with the sole motive for monetary gain, lure of office and for grabbing power, changed parties three or four times in a day. The evil of political defections became a matter of national concern. 20. Hence, on 8.12.1967, the Lok Sabha unanimously adopted the following resolution:- “a high-level Committee consisting of representatives of political parties and Constitutional experts be set up immediately by Government to consider the problem of legislators changing their allegiance from one party to another and their frequent crossing of the floor in all its aspect and make recommendations in this regard.” Accordingly, a Committee known as the Committee on Defections was set up to study the problems of political defections and suggest remedial measures. The Committee in its report dated 7th January, 1969 observed:- “Following the Fourth General Elections, in the short period between March, 1967 and February, 1968, the Indian political scene was characterized by numerous instances of change of party allegiance by legislators of change of party allegiance by legislators in several States. Compared to roughly 542 cases in the entire period between the first and the Fourth General Elections, at least 438 defections occurred in these 12 months alone. Among Independents, 157 out of a total of 376 elected, joined various parties in this period. Compared to roughly 542 cases in the entire period between the first and the Fourth General Elections, at least 438 defections occurred in these 12 months alone. Among Independents, 157 out of a total of 376 elected, joined various parties in this period. That the lure of office played a dominant part in decisions of legislators to defect was obvious from the fact that out of 210 defecting legislators of the States of Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, 116 were included in the Council of Minister which they helped to bring into being by defections. The other disturbing features of this phenomenon were: multiple acts of defections by the same person or set of persons (Haryana affording a conspicuous example); few resignations of the membership of the legislature on the part of defectors to political parties, constituency preference or public opinion, and the belief held by the people and expressed in the press that corruption and bribery were behind some of these defections.” According to Shri Subhash C. Kashyap, former Secretary-General of Lok Sabha, between the fourth and the fifth general elections in 1967 and 1972, there were nearly 2000 cases of defection and counter-defection, and that the lure of office played a dominant part in this Act. The Committee on Defections recommended, inter alia: “Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of Constitution empower Parliament to make a law providing for disqualification of a person for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the State Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council. As standing for election to Parliament or State Legislature is only a statutory right as distinguished from a fundamental right, it is open to Parliament to impose such restrictions or conditions on the exercise and enjoyment of that right as it considers necessary or reasonable in public interest. On that basis, it is possible to provide in a special legislation that a legislator who renounces the membership of or repudiates his allegiance to a political party shall be disqualified from continuing as a member of Parliament/State Legislature. He will nevertheless be free to stand for election again if he so wishes, and to sit as a member in case he gets elected. He will nevertheless be free to stand for election again if he so wishes, and to sit as a member in case he gets elected. Where, however, a legislator defects for a pecuniary advantage or for an office of profit, an element of aggravation enters into his action which, we feel, has to be visited with greater severity. This may be done by providing that in addition to being disqualified from continuing as a member of Parliament/State Legislature, he will also be disqualified from being chosen as a member of Parliament/State Legislature for a particular period. In this context, we consider the term “office of profit” as used in Article 102/191 to be inclusive of ministership (as is evident from the explanation contained in Cl.(2) of that Article); hence, defection for the sake of ministership can, without difficulty, be brought under the aggravated category. If any person who has been elected as a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and who was allotted the reserved symbol of any political party in respect of such election renounces (whether by words, conduct or any other manner) after the said election allegiance to, or association with, such political party, he shall upon such renunciation, be disqualified for being a member of the House of Parliament, Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council to which he was so elected.” Meanwhile, the Election Commission also in its Report on the Mid-term General Election in India, 1968-69, lamented:- “When the results of the Fourth General Elections of 1967 were declared, it was found that the Indian National Congress which had till then been the dominant political party throughout India had lost its majority in a number of state Legislative Assemblies and its majority in the House of the People had also drastically dwindled. This not only resulted in the formation of non-congress Governments in a number of State Assemblies but also made the members of such state Assemblies forget the election-promises and pledges held out to the electorate at the time of election by and on behalf of the parties by whom they were sponsored and started defecting in large numbers in quick succession from their respective parties. The elected representatives forgot that defection and re-defection from one party to another is not paying in the long-run, and more often than not it acts as a boomerang hitting the person by whom it is resorted to. The moral consequences of defection and floor-crossing are sometimes far-reaching and serious.” 21. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Committee on defections, the Constitution (Thirty-Second Amendment) Bill, 1973 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1973 seeking to amend Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution and to provide, inter alia, for disqualifying a Member from continuing as a Member of either House of Parliament or the State Legislature on his voluntarily giving up of the membership of the political party by which he was set up as candidate at such election, etc. The Bill, however, lapsed with the dissolution of the House on 18.1.1977. 22. Subsequently, another Bill viz., the Constitution (Forty-Eight Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 28.8.1978. Unlike the earlier Bill, this Bill sought to specify defection from a Member’s original political party as a disqualification under articles 102 or 191, as the case may be, and to insert a new Schedule viz., Tenth schedule in the Constitution to deal with various aspects of defection. But, the 1978-Bill was withdrawn on the same day. However, having experienced the worst political indiscipline and betrayal to the democratic ethics, and as sufficient damage was caused to the political morale in the country by then due to defections, the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Bill, 1985 was introduced and passed in the Parliament in the end of January, 1985. The Act came into force from 1.3.1985. The Statement of objects and Reasons for bringing the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, makes the intention for the introduction of Tenth Schedule to the Constitution clear, and the same is as follows:- “The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the President to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the President to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. The Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above assurance.” From the above it is clear that the purpose of enacting the Constitution) Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, i.e., incorporation of the Tenth Schedule and other amendments has a long history which was of serious concern and not only to stabilize the legally elected Governments and to prevent the political immorality and corruption, but also to make them effective. 23. Though we are conscious that all statements made during the debate in Parliament will not form a part of the law when the Bill is ultimately made as law, we deem it necessary and find it beneficial to notice certain of the opinions expressed during the debate made in the Parliament while introducing Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Bill. This is so, since the people’s representatives themselves have expressed serious concern about the falling political standard, defection and floor crossing for personal benefit. The Bill was therefore introduced keeping in mind the phenomenon of the defection which became acute and apparent after the Fourth General Elections in the year 1967. Whereas, up to 1967, there have been only about 400 defections, but within one year from the election of 1967, there were 500-odd defections, of which, the figures also say, 118 were by persons who became Ministers or Ministers of State. Among 157 independents out of a total of 367 elected, joined various parties during the period between March 1967 to February 1968. The problem became so important from the point of view of preserving the best traditions of democracy and of setting certain norms of political behaviour that a Committee of defection was set up in the month of October 1967 under the Chairmanship of the then Union Home Minister Sri Y.B. Chavan, and consisting of eminent jurists like Mr. Daphtary, Mr. Seervai and also independents and Members of different political parties represented in Parliament. Daphtary, Mr. Seervai and also independents and Members of different political parties represented in Parliament. The said Committee made certain recommendations and those recommendations were considered when the 1973 Constitution (Amendment) Bill was introduced first; and that Bill, for the first time, took cognizance of this phenomenon of what has come to be termed as “Aya Ram And Gaya Ram”. People crossed the Floor without any intelligible principle, but crossed the Floor mainly actuated by opportunise or for the purpose of gaining a political advantage or a personal advantage. The drama of changing colour of the mantle started then; and every section of the House and every section of the people was unanimously of the view that unless this phenomenon was completely obliterated from our politics, it would not only discredit our democracy but also doom the future growth of mature and healthy political conventions, which alone, apart from the constitutional provisions, sustain a strong democracy. Some of the relevant views expressed in the Debate over the Bill are as hereunder: Sri Sharad Dighe, Member, expressed that, any act of a Member which brings down the Government has to be punished because he has already given a commitment to his voters that he would stand by that party, he would stand by their manifesto and discipline of that party. Therefore, voting against the party or abstaining from voting has not been allowed. Sri Zainul Basheer, Member, has expressed that, if after winning the election with the support of the party, the Legislator defects from that party, it is a great fraud. That the Legislators do not deceive themselves or the Government or the party, but they deceive those people who elect them. Such Legislators stabbed the back of those people who have voted for a particular member keeping in view the ideology, election manifesto and the symbol of the party. If he defects from his party and joins the other, he stabs his voters in the back. He deceives those voters. Sri Vijay N. Patil, Member, has expressed that, seldom independent members get elected. That is very true of the Parliament as also of the Assembly. Hence, to defy the voters and cross over to the other side is a treachery and it must be punished by disqualification from the Membership of the House. He deceives those voters. Sri Vijay N. Patil, Member, has expressed that, seldom independent members get elected. That is very true of the Parliament as also of the Assembly. Hence, to defy the voters and cross over to the other side is a treachery and it must be punished by disqualification from the Membership of the House. Sri Giridhar Gomango, Member, has stated that definitely, this Bill is a blow to the politicians, who have been crossing or changing the floors, have been resorting to carpet crossing, political turn¬coatism, the politics of musical chair, the politics of opportunism and the politics of defection. There are four groups in politics, namely the spectator group, the factor group, the defector group and that group which is more dangerous than others have given some concession for splitters. This Bill definitely check all these kinds of political groups. It is further debated that the Bill is not meant for the people, but for the Legislators themselves. Due to some historical reason, or vested interest, the politicians lost purity, as well as principles in politics. Therefore, the Legislators are legislating the law for themselves to make themselves disciplined politicians. Even recording the role of the independent members, the Debate went on and Sri. B.K. Gadhvi, one of the Member has expressed his views as under: “It is stated that independents elected by the people cannot join any political party. I do not understand any rational behind this. If some change is not done here, then, five or six independents in a State may tilt the balance this side or that side and there will again be the menace of “Ayarams” and Gayarams”. Therefore, when a man is selected independently, he has got the verdict of the people on his own account. If a person is selected as an independent with the tacit or active support of any political party, then it is justified to say that he cannot be allowed to join any political party. But, once a person is independently, then his right to act independently also exists along with his position. I think, it would not be proper to curtail or to put fetters on the right of an independent person. My humble submission for the consideration of the hon. Law Minister is that in the case of Independents we should not put any fetters of their later joining any political party. I think, it would not be proper to curtail or to put fetters on the right of an independent person. My humble submission for the consideration of the hon. Law Minister is that in the case of Independents we should not put any fetters of their later joining any political party. The objectives of this Bill are laudable and it will definitely act as a deterrent against defections. But the basic aim and idea of the Bill is that with a view to create a healthy democracy in the country, independence, non-recognised political parties, small parochial and regional parties are not conducive to the growth of democracy. Therefore, our aim is that if we want to maintain and develop democracy, national parties of equal caliber and contest should be developed. Unfortunately, it is not happening. The blame can be put on the other side. But, I am not going into that aspect. Since democracy is a sine qua non for a healthy nation, there should be national parties all over the country of good matching strength until it is developed, democracy in the true sense would not be developing. Therefore, my submission would be that with a view to discourage the independence, with a view to discourage some small regional or parochial groups to contest and come in the forefront of the democratic forum or arena of this country, some measures are to be adopted. If there are Independents, then tacitly people would try and the Independents would become an instrument of horse-trading because they will be voting once on this side and at another time on that side. When there is a crucial moment, when there is a narrower contest between the rival parties in the House, then they would be playing their role and horse-trading cannot be eliminated for which we aim in this Bill.” (Emphasis supplied) Sri Kamal Nath, Member, has expressed his views on the Bill as under: “Coming to the loophole, the disqualification arising out of defection in this Bill is only a partial deterrent to a person who defects because of inducement of office for the defector can be appointed a Minister for six months, without contesting any election. It is true he will have to seek election within lose his seat after six months. It is true he will have to seek election within lose his seat after six months. But he can be appointed as Minister for six months by the party, which may be in office, to which he has defected. This is an inherent weakness of this Bill. We have not fully and totally prevented nor we are trying to stem. In the short run, any one can avail of this opportunity. I would suggest that there should be some sort of deterrent, that he cannot hold a Government office, or that he cannot seek re-election for a couple of years, say, six or eight years.” (Emphasis supplied) Sri Jagan Nath Kaushal, Member, has expressed his views as under: “In fact, it is very simple Bill as it stands. The controversial Clause has been taken out. Now the Bill is very simple. If he resigns from that political party, on the label of which he won the election, the least what should be done is that he should forfeit his seat. Some hon. Members are even suggesting that not only he should forfeit his seat, he should be disqualified for a number of years more. Some people have gone to this length. They say merely because he loses his seat, it is not enough punishment, he should be disqualified for a number of years. But we have not gone to that length. For the moment, we are on this that he should lose his seat and go back to the electorate by telling them “I have renounced that party. Now I am coming on the ticker of another party”, or “I am coming as an independent person. Would you elect me? There was an extensive debate relating to the status of the independent members. Sri Jagan Nath Kaushal, Member, has expressed his views on this point in the Debate as under: “One of my hon. Friends just raised the question: why have you brought in independents in this net? Independent is an independents. He forgets the base. The basic idea is this. When he went to the electorate, he told everybody, I do not like any of these political parties, these political parties are so arrogant that they did not give to a person like me the party ticket and, therefore, I will fight independently. Now let him stick to what he told his electorate. The basic idea is this. When he went to the electorate, he told everybody, I do not like any of these political parties, these political parties are so arrogant that they did not give to a person like me the party ticket and, therefore, I will fight independently. Now let him stick to what he told his electorate. He has fought independently; he has secured the verdict of the electorate as an independent candidate. Therefore, he must continue as an independent candidate. The moment he loses his independence, he is subject to this law because of the very base is the promise he made to the electorate the; electorate was the final authority which decided that he was a fit person to be elected because he was independent. (Emphasis supplied) I conclude by saying what Prof. Madu Dandavate has said. On this solemn day, we have taken a step and that is a step which certainly bring credit to this Parliament that they have taken a very bold step, which could not be taken for the last twenty years, in order to clean the public life.” Expressing his gratitude, the then Law Minister Sri. A.K. Sen said thus: “I want to express my gratitude to the House, to the Prime Minister and to the Members of my party for the strong support which they have given for making this a reality. This proves once again, if proof was needed, the maturity and the stability of our democracy. Amidst the clash of arms and bickerings of parties, when the call of the nation has gone out, the people, irrespective of parties, have closed their ranks and come and needed to the call of the nation. I remember, in this very House, when the Chinese attack came, when our late leader Sri Jawahar Lal Nehru, was speaking on the proclamation of Emergency, he uttered these great words, which are still ringing in my ears: “this is our finest hour. We must all stand like a solid rock and repeal this invasion.” And the country did stand like a solid rock. The opposition here and outside and everywhere rallied round the flag of India. I remember the Vijaya Chowk procession of that year on the republic day when the entire Opposition turned out along with our great leader and marched bare footed along the path of the Vijiya Chowk. The opposition here and outside and everywhere rallied round the flag of India. I remember the Vijaya Chowk procession of that year on the republic day when the entire Opposition turned out along with our great leader and marched bare footed along the path of the Vijiya Chowk. I remember when the Pakistani attack came in 1971 and Indira Gandhi gave a clarion call to the nation again to rally round, this nation did rally round and amidst the class of arms it responded to the call of the nation. So, again today the conscious of our democracy and our duty to the nation fall has brought us altogether to support the Prime Minister in the pledge he gave immediately after he came and took over the administration of this great country, that this Bill well be reality after all. And so it is a reality.” “MR. SPEAKER: Subject to correction, the result of the Division is: Ayes 418; Noes Nil. The Motion is carried by a majority of the total membership of the House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. The Bill, as amended, is passed by the requisite majority in accordance with the provisions of article 368 of the Constitution. The Motion was adopted. (Emphasis Supplied) It is apposite to quote the concluding remarks made by Prof. Madu Dandavate, and reply by the Speaker which is not just witty but it is the punch line that sums up the entire intent, purpose and object of the Tenth Schedule. PROF. MADU DANDAVATE: Sir, what about obituary reference to defectors? MR. SPEAKER: The passing of this Bill is itself an obituary to defectors.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. The object is to curb the evil of political defections motivated by lure of office, monetary gain or other similar considerations, which endanger the foundations of our democracy and deny the citizens of being governed by a stable government by laying emphasis on development. The object is also to preserve democratic structure of the Legislature and safeguard political morality in legislators. The object sought to be achieved by the Tenth Schedule is to ensure loyalty of the legislators to a political party which sponsored the candidature. It further prevents independent members from loosing their independent character as such and prohibits them from joining a political party. The object sought to be achieved by the Tenth Schedule is to ensure loyalty of the legislators to a political party which sponsored the candidature. It further prevents independent members from loosing their independent character as such and prohibits them from joining a political party. The object is also to ensure the voters of a particular constituency from which a member is elected as an independent candidate that such candidate would not join any political party after the elections. While electing a person as an independent member of Legislature, the majority of the voters of the constituency would reject the candidates from the political parties contesting from such constituency. As such, it is expected and it is incumbent on the elected independent member to retain his independent character without joining any political party and without imbibing or following the policies or ideas of any political party. The electorate while choosing to vote for the independent would be aware that if elected, their representative would not be a part of the Government which in any event will be formed by one or the other political party. 25. Thus, the provisions of Tenth Schedule are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections (See Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachillhu- AIR 1993 SC 412 ) ANALYSIS OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS: 26. 25. Thus, the provisions of Tenth Schedule are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections (See Kihoto Hollohon vs. Zachillhu- AIR 1993 SC 412 ) ANALYSIS OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS: 26. In this background, to resolve the issues arising in these petitions, it is beneficial to note the following provisions: Paragraph-2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India: “2(2): An elected member of a House who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House if he joins any political party after such election.” Paragraph-6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India: “Decision on questions as to disqualification on ground of defection: (1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House has become subject to disqualification under this Schedule, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Chairman or, as the case may be, the Speaker of such House and his decision shall be final: PROVIDED that where the question which has arisen is as to whether the Chairman or the Speaker of a House has become subject to such disqualification, the question shall be referred for the decision of such member of the House as the House may elect in this behalf and his decision shall be final. (2) All proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in relation to any question as to disqualification of a member of a House under this Schedule shall be deemed to be proceedings in Parliament within the meaning of article 122 or, as the case may be, proceedings in the Legislature of a state within the meaning of article 212.” Paragraph-8 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India: “8. Rules: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, the Chairman or the Speaker of a House may make rules for giving effect to the provisions of this Schedule, and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such rules may provide for:- (a) the maintenance of registers or other records as to the political parties, if any, to which different members of the House belong; (b) the report which the leader of a Legislature party in relation to a member of House shall furnish with regard to any condonation of the nature referred to in clause (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 in respect of such member, the time within which and the authority to whom such report shall be furnished; (c) the reports which a political party shall furnish with regard to admission to such political party of any members of the House and the officer of the House to whom such reports shall be furnished; and (d) the procedure for deciding any question referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 including the procedure for any inquiry which may be made for the purpose of deciding such question. (2) The rules made by the Chairman or the Speaker of House under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be laid as soon as may be after they are made before the House for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions and shall take effect upon the expiry of the said period of thirty days unless they are sooner approved with or without modifications or disapproved by the House and where they are so approved, they shall take effect on such approval in the form in which they were laid or in such modified form, as the case may be, and where they are so disapproved they shall be of no effect. (3) The Chairman or the Speaker of a House may, without prejudice to the provisions of article 105 or, as the case may be, article 194, and to any other power which he may have under this Constitution direct that any wilful contravention by any person of the rules made under this paragraph may be dealt with in the same manner as a breach of privilege of the House. Pursuant to paragraph-8 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, The Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986, are framed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. Rule 3 of the Rules mandates that the leader of the Legislature Party shall, within thirty days after the first sitting of the House, or where such Legislature Party is formed after the first sitting, within thirty days after its formation, furnish a statement in writing containing the names of members of such Legislature Party together with other particulars regarding such Members. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 clarifies that whenever any change takes place in the information furnished by the leader of a Legislature Party under sub-rule (1), he shall within thirty days thereafter or within such further period as the speaker may for sufficient cause allow to furnish in writing information to the Speaker with respect to such change. Rule 4 deals with certain information to be furnished by the members of the Legislative Assembly. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 mandates that a summary of the information furnished by the members under this rule shall be published in the official Bulletin. Rule 5 of the Rules reveals that the Secretary of the House shall maintain a register based on the information furnished under Rules 3 and 4 in relation to the members and the information in relation to each member shall be recorded on a separate page in the Register. Rule 6 of the Disqualification Rules reads thus: “6. Reference to be by petitions: (1) No reference of any question as to whether a member has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule shall be made except by a petition in relation to such member made in accordance with the provisions of this rule. (2) A petition in relation to a member may be made in writing to the Speaker by any other member. Provided that a petition in relation to the Speaker shall be addressed to the Secretary. (2) A petition in relation to a member may be made in writing to the Speaker by any other member. Provided that a petition in relation to the Speaker shall be addressed to the Secretary. (3) The Secretary shall,- (a) as soon as may be after the receipt of a petition under the proviso to sub-rule (2) make a report in respect thereof to the House; and (b) as soon as may be after House has elected a member in pursuance of the proviso to sub¬paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule place the petition before such member. (4) Before making any petition in relation to any member, the petitioner shall satisfy himself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a question has arisen as to whether such member has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. (5) Every petition,- (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; and (b) shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary evidence, if any on which the petitioner relies and where the petitioner relies on any information furnished to him by any person, a statement containing the names and address of such person and the gist of such information as furnished by each such person. (6) Every petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings. (7) Every annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. Rule 7 deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Speaker on receipt of the petition under Rule¬6 in relation to disqualification. The same reads thus: “7. Procedure: (1) On receipt of a petition under rule 6, the Speaker shall consider whether the petition complies with the requirements of that rule. (2) If the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the Speaker shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. The same reads thus: “7. Procedure: (1) On receipt of a petition under rule 6, the Speaker shall consider whether the petition complies with the requirements of that rule. (2) If the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the Speaker shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. (3) If the petition complies with the requirements of rule 6, the Speaker shall cause copies of the petition and of the annexures thereto be forwarded- (a) to the member in relation to whom the petition has been made; and (b) where such member belongs to any legislature party and such petition has not been made by the leader thereof, also to such leader, and such member or leader shall, within seven days of the receipt of such copies, or within such further period as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow, forward his comments in writing thereon to the Speaker. (4) After considering the comments, if any, in relation to the petition, received under sub-rule (3) within the period allowed (whether originally or an extension under that sub-rule), the Speaker may either proceed to determine the question or if he is satisfied, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case that it is necessary or expedient so to do, refer the petition to the Committee for making a preliminary inquiry and submitting a report to him. (5) The speaker, shall, as soon as may be after referring a petition to the Committee under sub-rule (4), intimate the petitioner accordingly and make an announcement with respect to such reference in the House or, if the House is not then in session, cause the information as to the reference to be published in the Bulletin. (6) Where the Speaker makes a reference under sub-rule (4) to the Committee, he shall proceed to determine the question as soon as may be after receipt of the report from the Committee. (6) Where the Speaker makes a reference under sub-rule (4) to the Committee, he shall proceed to determine the question as soon as may be after receipt of the report from the Committee. (7) The procedure which shall be followed by the speaker for determining any question and the procedure which shall be followed by the Committee for the purpose of making a preliminary inquiry under sub-rule (4) shall be, so far as may be, the same as the procedure for inquiry and determination by the Committee of any question as to breach of privilege of the House by a member, and neither the Speaker nor the Committee shall come to any finding that a member has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule without affording a reasonable opportunity to such member to represent his case and to be heard in person. The decision on disqualification petition is taken as per Rule 8 of the Rules. The same read thus: “8. Decisions on Petitions: (1) At the conclusion of with respect to a petition in relation to the speaker as they apply with respect to a petition in elation to any other member and for this purpose, reference to the Speaker in these sub-rules shall be construed as including references to the member elected by the House under the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. 8. Decision on Petitions: (1) At the conclusion of the consideration of the petition, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the member elected under the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule shall be order in writing- (a) dismiss the petition, or (b) declare that the member in relation to whom the petition has been made has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, and cause copies of the order to be delivered or forwarded to the petitioner, the member in relation to whom the petition, has been made and to the Leader of the Legislature Party, if any, concerned. (2) Every decision declaring a member to have become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule shall be reported to the House forthwith if the House is in Session and if the House is not in Session immediately after the House reassembles. (2) Every decision declaring a member to have become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule shall be reported to the House forthwith if the House is in Session and if the House is not in Session immediately after the House reassembles. (3) Every decision referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be published in the Bulletin and notified in the Official Gazette and copies of such decision forwarded by the Secretary to the Election Commission of India and the State Government.” In the light of the foregoing, we shall now advert to the points which require consideration. 27. POINT NO.1 -REGARDING MAINTAINBILITY OF COMPLAINTS FILED BY VOTERS: It is contended on the behalf of the petitioners that the complaints seeking disqualification filed by five voters are not maintainable and it is only the member of the Legislative Assembly who can file complaint seeking disqualification. Reliance is placed on Rule 6(2) of the Disqualification Rules in support of the said contention. Reference in this context is made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of N.P. Ponnuswamy -vs- Returning Officer, ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ), Jagan Nath –vs-Jaswant Singh and Others ( AIR 1954 SC 210 ), State of Uttar Pradesh and Other –vs- Baburam Upadhya ( AIR 1961 SC 751 ), State of Tamil Nadu –vs- Hind Stone and Others ( (1981) 2 SCC 205 ), Jyothi Basu and Others –vs- Debi Ghosal ( (1982) 1 SCC 691 ), and Union of India –vs-Harjeet Singh Sandhu ( (2001) 5 SCC 593 ). In the said judgments, the sum and substance of what is held by the Apex Court is that the right to vote or contest as a candidate in the election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute and must be subject to imitations imposed by it. Strictly speaking it is the sole right of the Legislature to examine and determine all matters related to the elections and if the Legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a special Tribunal which is an entirely new and unknown jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction must be exercised in accordance with law which creates it. Strictly speaking it is the sole right of the Legislature to examine and determine all matters related to the elections and if the Legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a special Tribunal which is an entirely new and unknown jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction must be exercised in accordance with law which creates it. The general rule is well settled that the statutory requirements of the election law must be strictly observed and that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law. It is a sound principle of natural justice that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of law. However, it is always to be borne in mind that though the election of the successful candidate is not to be lightly interfered with, one of the essentials of that law is also to safe guard the purity of the election process and also to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breach of that law or by corrupt practices. 28. Having considered the said decisions, we are clear that there cannot be any dispute that the rules made under a statute must be treated for all purposes of construction or obligation exactly as if they were in the Act and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act and are to be judicially noticed for all purposes of construction and obligation. All the judgments cited by the petitioners reiterate the aforementioned legal position. There cannot be any dispute in respect of the said proposition of law. However, none of the judgments cited by the petitioners support their contention that voters have no locus standi to file complaints seeking application praying for disqualification on the grounds of defection in relation to Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. They either relate to Representation of People Act or other statutes in the facts arising therein and as such, are not of assistance in this case. They either relate to Representation of People Act or other statutes in the facts arising therein and as such, are not of assistance in this case. The matter on hand is to be viewed keeping in mind the intention with which Tenth Schedule is inserted by virtue of Fifty-second Amendment to the Constitution and the role of a voter in the electoral process in that context. Tenth Schedule of the constitution nowhere restricts filing of complaint seeking disqualification by a voter of that particular constituency. Tenth Schedule nowhere contemplates that the complaint seeking disqualification shall be moved only by the member of the House i.e. the Assembly or the Council as the case may be. The provisions of Tenth Schedule, as held by the Apex Court Kihoto Hollohon’s Case (cited supra) do not violate the freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience. They do not subvert democratic rights of elected members of parliament and legislatures of the states. The provisions are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled, unethical political defections. In order to curb conducting of elections at irregular intervals and in order to protect and sustain the purity of electoral process, Tenth Schedule is brought in the Constitution of India. With this object in mind, the matter needs to be looked into. In case if none of the member of the House complains about the illegal defections, because of members’ unholy mutual understanding, there is no reason as to why the voters who cast their votes with a purpose should remain a mute spectator. Each of the MLA is elected from a particular Assembly constituency. Majority of the voters of that constituency would have reposed confidence in the elected candidate and the political party to which he belongs, or otherwise, before electing. Thus it is the wish and will of the majority of the voters of that particular constituency which is a relevant and paramount consideration to be borne in mind. The voters of that constituency should not be placed in a helpless situation if none of the members of the House complains about the illegal defection. Therefore, every voter of the constituency should have an opportunity to oppose the illegal defecting by bringing it to the notice of the Speaker. The voters of that constituency should not be placed in a helpless situation if none of the members of the House complains about the illegal defection. Therefore, every voter of the constituency should have an opportunity to oppose the illegal defecting by bringing it to the notice of the Speaker. Since Tenth Schedule of the Constitution does not debar filing of the complaint seeking disqualification of a defected member, every voter in the concerned constituency has got right to file application seeking disqualification since a Rule should not be permitted to bar the remedy which is not barred by the Constitution. If such a construction is not arrived at or if such a meaning is not given, then the intention and the object with which Tenth Schedule is brought into the Constitution will be frustrated. The Rules cannot be permitted to over ride the constitutional provisions. Rule 6(2) of the Rules merely provides for filing of a petition in relation to a member may be made in writing to the speaker by any other member. The words used in the said sub-rule are “may be” and not “shall be”. The said sub rule does not prohibit the voter of the constituency from making the application seeking for disqualification. However, it merely enables another member of the House to make such an application. In this context a reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. The Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others, reported in ( 2004 (8) SCC 747 ), wherein while considering the Rules made under Tenth Schedule, it is observed that the Rules being in the domain of the procedure are intended to facilitate the holding of enquiry and not to frustrate or obstruct the same by introduction of innumerable technicalities. Being sub-ordinate legislation, the Rules cannot make any provision which may have the effect of curtailing the content and scope of the substantive provision, namely Tenth Schedule. It is held that the rules are directory in nature. The validity of the Rules can be sustained only if they are held to be directory in nature as otherwise, on strict interpretation, they would be rendered ultra vires. It is held that the rules are directory in nature. The validity of the Rules can be sustained only if they are held to be directory in nature as otherwise, on strict interpretation, they would be rendered ultra vires. While holding so, the Apex Court observed thus: “Paragraph 6 of the Schedule does not contemplate moving of a formal petition by any person for assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman or the Speaker of the House. The purpose of Rules 6 and 7 is only this much that the necessary facts on account of which member of the House becomes disqualified for being a member of the House under Paragraph 2, may be brought to the notice of the Chairman. There is no lis between the person moving the petition and the member of the House who is alleged to have incurred a disqualification. It is not an adversarial kind of litigation where he may be required to lead evidence. Even if he withdraws the petition it will make no difference as a duty is cast upon the Chairman or the Speaker to carry out the mandate of the constitutional provision i.e. the Tenth Schedule.” (Emphasis supplied) As aforementioned, if the members of the house collude with each other by not filing a complaint seeking disqualification of defected member, the defecting legislator, who has otherwise incurred the disqualification under paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule would be able to get away by taking advantage of silence of the members of the House, which could even be intentional as a bargain or barter for mutual benefit at the cost of public interest. Consequently, the object of the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act by which the Tenth Schedule was added would be defeated only because the birds of the same feather have chosen to flock together. Paragraph-6 of the Tenth Schedule vests the power in the speaker to disqualify the defecting member of the house. It is the substantive provision. The power under paragraph-6 is absolute and without any rider. Paragraph-6 of the Tenth Schedule vests the power in the speaker to disqualify the defecting member of the house. It is the substantive provision. The power under paragraph-6 is absolute and without any rider. In that view, even if the words “may be” found in Rule 6(2) of the Rules are read as “shall be” so as to clothe it with mandatory character, it should be read down to achieve the object of substantive provision inasmuch as such mandatory character would not have the sweep to restrict the scope and ambit of the power vested in the Speaker under paragraph-6(1) of the Tenth Schedule since the substantive provision of law would not be stifled by the procedural rule. The exercise of power by the Speaker under paragraph-6(2) of the Tenth Schedule is not dependent upon the framing of Rules under paragraph-8. Even in the absence of the Rules framed for the purpose, the Speaker has the authority to resolve the dispute if raised before him. The authority of the Speaker operates proprio vigore without any fetter being clamped on his power by the Rules. (see the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Bhajaman Bobera vs. Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly and others, reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 18.) As aforementioned, a bar cannot be read into Rule 6(2) for an interested voter to approach the Speaker by filing complaint seeking disqualification. Even otherwise, Tenth Schedule does not permit any limitation in the manner as suggested by Sri P.P. Rao. What Paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule requires is that the question should arise as to whether a member is disqualified because of the defection or not. How the question arises, by whom it is raised and under what circumstances it is raised, are not relevant for the purpose of the application of this paragraph. All that is relevant is that a question of the type mentioned in paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule should arise and so the limitation which Sri P.P. Rao, seeks to introduce in the construction of paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule r/w. Rule 6 of the Rules is plainly inconsistent with the words used and the intention behind paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule. All that is relevant is that a question of the type mentioned in paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule should arise and so the limitation which Sri P.P. Rao, seeks to introduce in the construction of paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule r/w. Rule 6 of the Rules is plainly inconsistent with the words used and the intention behind paragraph-2 of Tenth Schedule. It is conceivable that in some cases complaints made to the Speaker, may be frivolous or fantastic; but if they are of such a character, the Speaker will find no difficulty in expressing his opinion that they should be rejected in limine. The object of Tenth Schedule is plain. No member who has incurred any of the disqualifications specified by Tenth Schedule is entitled to continue to be the member of the Legislative Assembly/Council of the State. Since the obligation to vacate his seat as a result of his subsequent disqualification has been imposed by the Constitution itself by Tenth Schedule, there should be no difficulty in holding that any voter of the Constituency is entitled to make a complaint to the Speaker alleging that the MLA representing the said constituency has incurred disqualification mentioned in paragraph-2 of the Tenth Schedule and should, therefore, vacate his seat. The whole object of democratic elections is to constitute legislative chambers composed of members who are entitled to that status and if any member forfeits that status by reason of a subsequent disqualification, it is in the interest of constituency which such member represents that the matter should be brought to the notice of the Speaker and decided by him in accordance with the provisions of Tenth Schedule. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention suggesting limitation as to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Speaker on an application filed by the voter. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention suggesting limitation as to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Speaker on an application filed by the voter. (See the judgments in the case of Brundaban Nayak vs. Election Commission of India & Another, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1892 and in the case of State of Punjab vs. M/s. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Limited, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1608 , which fortify our view.) It is further relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Rana & Others vs. Swami Prasad Mourya & Others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1305 , while referring to the Full Bench judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which read thus:- “The decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prakash Singh Badal vs. Union of India & others (AIR 1987 Punjab & Haryana 263) was relied upon to contend that the Speaker gets jurisdiction to render a decision in terms of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India only when in terms of paragraph 6 thereof a question of disqualification arose before him. The Full Bench by a majority held:- ‘Under, para-6, the Speaker would have the jurisdiction in this matter only if any question arises as to whether a member of the House has become subject to disqualification under the said Schedule and the same has been referred to him for decision. The purpose of requirement of a reference obviously is that even when a question as to the disqualification of a member arises, the Speaker is debarred from taking suo moto cognizance and he would seized of the matter only when the question is referred to him by any interested person. The Speaker has not been clothed with a suo moto power for the obvious reason that he is supposed to be a non-party man and has been entrusted with the jurisdiction to act judicially and decide the dispute between the conflicting groups. The other prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of the Speaker under para 6 is the existence of a question of disqualification of some member. The other prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of the Speaker under para 6 is the existence of a question of disqualification of some member. Such a question can arise only in one way, viz., that any member is alleged to have incurred the disqualification enumerated in para 2(1) and some interested person approaches the Speaker for declaring that the said member is disqualified from being member of the House and the claim is refuted by the member concerned.” (Emphasis supplied)