The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that a Constitutional Court cannot impose a timeframe on the Speaker of a State legislative assembly to decide on the resignation of its members.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma delivered the ruling following a difference of opinion between Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua regarding the Court's authority to set such deadlines.

The case stemmed from a Writ Petition filed by independent lawmakers Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur, who sought a direction from the Court compelling the Speaker to immediately accept their resignations submitted on March 22. On May 8, the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Rao and Justice Dua had opined that the Court cannot mandate the Speaker to accept an MLA's resignation. However, Chief Justice Rao proposed a compromise wherein the Speaker would be directed to determine the genuineness of the resignations within two months.

Due to the disagreement on setting a timeframe, the matter was referred to Justice Sandeep Sharma for resolution.

The Single-Judge Bench underscored that the Speaker, in the context of resignations, functions as a constitutional authority on par with the judiciary. "Constitutional courts respect the domain of other constitutional authorities and do not interfere in their specific roles unless necessary," the Court emphasized, reflecting the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Examining the legal framework, the Court noted that while Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 287 of the Rules provide guidelines for the Speaker's discretion in accepting resignations, they do not prescribe a specific timeframe. The rules state that if a member personally submits a resignation letter and asserts its voluntary and genuine nature, the Speaker "may" accept it immediately unless there is evidence to the contrary.

"Since provisions contained under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 287 of the Rules specifically talks about the satisfaction of the Speaker with regard to voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation, the writ court cannot go into that aspect of the matter, rather decision, if any, given by the Speaker on the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation submitted by the member is subject to judicial review," the Court said.

In this case, the Court highlighted that the independent MLAs had presented their resignations in the company of BJP leaders, implying potential political influence. The Court noted that had the MLAs submitted their resignations independently, their argument for immediate acceptance might have held more weight. However, the discretionary use of the word "may" in the rules affords the Speaker the authority to assess the circumstances and decide on the resignation's validity.

Furthermore, the Single-Judge Bench clarified that while the Speaker's decision on the voluntariness and genuineness of resignations is subject to judicial review, the Court cannot dictate the timeframe within which such decisions must be made. This limitation respects the Speaker's constitutional mandate to conduct an inquiry if there are doubts about the resignations' authenticity.

The Court also underscores the delicate balance between the judiciary's oversight role and the autonomy of other constitutional authorities, particularly in matters affecting legislative procedures.

Reflecting on the broader implications, the Single-Judge Bench highlights the importance of procedural fairness and constitutional propriety in handling legislative resignations. It upholds the Speaker's pivotal role in verifying the voluntary nature of resignations without undue influence or external pressures.

Conclusively, the Court said, "Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court is persuaded to agree with view taken by the Hon’ble Chief Justice that no timeframe can be fixed by the Constitutional Court for the Speaker to decide the issue of resignation tendered by members of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha, if any, brought before him. Reference is answered accordingly."

Cause Title: Sh. Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Ors. v. Hon'ble Speaker and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:3469]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Advocates Anshul Bansal, Ajay Vaidya, Prabhas Bajaj, Shriyek Sharda, Rangasaran Mohan

Respondent: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate K.S. Banyal, Advocate Rohit Sharma, Udya Singh Banyal, Aprajita Jamwal, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin lalwani, Rishabh Parikh, Senior Advocate Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate Arjun Lal

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Sandeep SharmaHimachal Pradesh High Court

Sukriti Mishra