Thread by @barandbench

Live Thread 《PLEA BY RAJASTHAN SPEAKER》

Justice Arun Mishra led bench to hear plea by Speaker of the Rajasthan Assembly, CP Joshi against Rahasthan HC "directing" him to defer disqualification proceedings against Sachin Pilot & team till July 24

#SupremeCourt

High Court, in its order had effectively restrained the Speaker from proceeding against Pilot & team & this "direction" of the High Court is in teeth of the 10th Schedule and legal principle laid down in the Kihoto Hollohan case, Joshi's plea has contended

@SachinPilot

Assailing this order, the Speaker has averred that it is a well settled legal principle laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan case that the Courts cannot interfere in the Tenth Schedule proceedings

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

The speaker says in the plea that the notices issued by the Speaker on July 14 to Pilot and other MLAs were only for the purpose of seeking their response as regards initiating disqualification proceedings

#RajasthanPoliticalCrisis
#SachinPilot

Hearing begins.
Justice Mishra skips Item 1, MC Mehta case as it would take time.

Senior Adv Kapil Sibal argues for Rajasthan Speaker: my argument will be on narrow footing. The HC states that it had taken note of written submissions were filed by us.

@KapilSibal

Senior Adv Sibal reads the Rajasthan HC order.

Sibal: "The court cannot direct speaker to extend time for disqualification proceedings. It's not the jurisdiction of the High Court"

#RajasthanPoliticalCrisis

Senior Advocate @KapilSibal reads the Kihoto Hollohan constitution bench verdict.

#RajasthanPolitics

Sibal: Court's interference is barred in such matters as paragraph 6 of the tenth schedule of the Constitution renders a finality clause to the decision of the speaker and thus here Rajasthan HC's direction is not valid.

#RajasthanPolitics
#PilotVsGehlot

Senior Adv Kapil Sibal: In Hollohan, it was argued that because of finality clause and because proceedings were within the house, such an action could not be challenged in the court.....

Sibal...... Court held that finality clause is subject to judicial review but everything that happens prior to decision cannot be subject to review

#RajasthanPolitics
#PilotVsGehlot

.@KapilSibal continues: 'Kihoto Hollohan' verdict stated court can venture into if disqualification proceedings is initiated when court has already intervened. Speaker cannot disqualify the person before he decides on the matter

#RajasthanPoliticalCrisis

Justice Mishra: What is the bar? Read again

Sibal: Exception is that court can intervene if disqualification is done during pendency of proceedings

Justice Mishra: That means it's not an absolute bar

Sibal: Judicial review cannot cover any instance which is before speaker takes a decision on disqualification proceedings. Interlocutory disqualification with great repurcussion is only stage when court can interfere.. This is what 5 judge bench in Kihoto Hollohan ruled.

Sibal: Thus the Rajasthan HC order is in teeth of Kihoto judgment

Justice Mishra: Was the point of interlocutory disqualification argued in Rajasthan HC?

Sibal: yes it was

Sibal: Even Justice RF Nariman heading a three judge bench had ruled that speaker can be directed to take a decision on proceedings but not extend protective cover to him

(SC to hear the case in a while as the case law is being arranged for the bench)

Sibal (reads the notice issued by Rajasthan Speaker, Dr CP Joshi to @SachinPilot and 18 other MLAs)

Justice Mishra: Who sent it?

Sibal: The chief whip, this is not a whip in the context of 2(1)(b) of the 10th schedule. Whip is not defined.

Justice Mishra: Then how is speaker involved here? How is Kihoto Hollohan relevant here as it deals with speaker and not whip!

#RajasthanPoliticalCrisis
@KapilSibal
@SachinPilot

Sibal: A disqualification petition has been filed by the Chief Whip to the speaker

Justice Mishra: Where is that?

Sibal: There are 10th schedule rules. It says that if actions of a member of a party suggests that they cease to be members then a whip moves such a plea

Sibal: @SachinPilot and Team have issued statements to Aaj Tak that they want a floor test. They all went to Haryana in a hotel. They refused to attend a party meeting where they were urged to. This all led to actions meaning they want to part ways from INC

Justice Mishra: what did speaker do?

@KapilSibal : He issued a notice. Dr Mahek Joshi had filed a petition before speaker to disqualify the members. Thereafter they were asked to submit written submissions and that hearing was slated for July 27 at his home.

Sibal: our grievance is purely constitutional. Till speaker takes a decision, courts cannot intervene.

Justice Mishra: Come to the disqualification petition?

Sibal: SC has in a number of times disqualified members from toeing party line.

Sibal: We are proceeding on 2(1)(a) of the 10th schedule.. If there is voting in the house, then whip comes into the picture under 2(1)(b). We are not on that.

MLA Hemaram Choudhary were working to destabilise Indian National Congress and acted against parry interest

Sibal: These group of MLAs are headed by Sachin Pilot

Justice Mishra: Why are you looking pale?

Sibal: No I am not pale. I am happy Senior Adv Harish Salve is smiling

Sibal: MLA Meena had made a statement to Times Now that people of Rajasthan had been cheated by Congress govt

Justice Mishra: Why did not the party take a decision first?

Sibal: Courts cannot intervene into that. I am not representing the Congress party

Justice Mishra: But this will be a case where party members cannot raise voice against his own party?

Sibal: But this has happened a lot of times, SC has upheld

Justice Mishra: Voice of dissent cannot be suppressed !

Sibal: These are questions of facts. Court cannot enter this domain under Article 226 of the Constitution

Justice BR Gavai: When you refer Justice Nariman's verdict, if speaker acts as a tribunal, then how are you aggrieved?

Sibal: I did not say I am aggrieved. I am saying courts can ask speaker to decide the matter, that is why Justice Nariman makes the distinction

Justice Gavai: You were only requested by HC to wait till July 24.

Sibal: suspend the words direction from the order, court cannot do this. It's against constitution bench verdict

The court attempting to reconnect to Senior Adv Kapil Sibal

Senior Adv Harish Salve: We can hear the matter at 2 pm

Justice Mishra: You think we do not know that?

Sibal resumes: my only grievance is with the speaker

Justice Mishra: This is about party democracy

Sibal: Let them explain that and how party democracy was in Haryana. But HC order is against constitution bench verdict. MLAs were asked to come to a party meeting on July 14

Justice Mishra: what speaker will decide no one can say

Sibal: There have been numerous SC decisions which state actions outside party line and not even attending meeting has resulted into disqualification

Justice Mishra: Even party meeting?

Sibal: Decisions are attached

Decisions stating not attending party meeting leads to disqualification being sought from Senior Adv Kapil Sabil by Justice Mishra

(Sibal searches verdict)

Justice Mishra: Let this matter be heard at length. This will require detailed hearing. Your questions require lengthy hearing.

Sibal: So suspend the HC order

SC: But that's what we need to examine

Sibal: Transfer HC petition here

SC: Not now. Not like this.

Sibal: Atleast stay the HC proceeding

Sibal: proceedings in High Court needs to be stayed. You want to examine the question of jurisdiction and there in HC is deciding can Speaker take a call.

J Mishra: when we pass an order, question of jurisdiction will still remain open there

Supreme Court seeks a response from senior Advocates Harish Salve, and Mukul Rohatgi after Senior Adv Kapil Sibal asks for a stay on the HC proceeding.

Senior Adv Harish Salve: Speaker has argued that I will take this into account and that into account in the HC. Speaker also agreed that no fresh notice will be issued.

Senior Advocate Salve: Speaker had deferred the proceedings on his own twice in the past. The issues of jurisdiction and maintainability have been argued before the HC. Having appeared and argued there, why should he now ask HC not to decide?

Justice Mishra: Can we say order of the Rajasthan high court will be subject to the outcome here?

Salve agrees

Sibal: Since issue of jurisdiction is before you let the HC proceeding be stayed. Speaker will not take a decision till matter is pending here in SC

Justice Mishra: No restrain on Rajasthan HC proceeding. Let Hc deliver its judgement tomorrow. However the HC judgment will be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court orders finally. Matter in SC to be heard now on July 27 again.
#RajasthanPoliticalCrisis
#SupremeCourt

#BREAKING Rajasthan Political Crisis: Supreme Court bench led by Justice Arun Mishra refuses to restrain proceedings before Rajasthan High Court, Order subject to Supreme Court decision

@SachinPilot @KapilSibal #RajasthanPolitics
#SachinPilot

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…