In a landmark decision, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that constitutional courts cannot impose a timeframe on the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly to accept or reject the resignations of its members. This ruling came in the case involving independent lawmakers Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur, who sought a directive for the Speaker to promptly accept their resignations.
Justice Sandeep Sharma issued the ruling after a divergence of opinion emerged between Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua on the matter. While the court agreed that it couldn’t force the Speaker’s hand in accepting resignations, it debated whether a deadline could be imposed to determine the authenticity of the resignations.
Justice Sharma elaborated that the Speaker functions as a constitutional authority when handling resignations, equating the Speaker’s authority with that of the constitutional courts. This balance of power necessitates mutual respect for each domain’s specific roles, as recognized by both Chief Justice Rao and Justice Dua in their separate opinions.
The case was initially heard by a division bench on May 8, where Chief Justice Rao stated that although the court couldn’t compel the Speaker to accept the resignations, it could mandate a timeframe to verify their genuineness. Since there was no consensus on setting a deadline, the matter was referred to Justice Sharma.
Despite the MLAs’ resignations being accepted and their subsequent alignment with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the legal question of the court’s authority to set a deadline persisted. Justice Sharma ultimately determined that since both judges concurred that only the Speaker could assess the voluntariness of the resignations, setting a timeframe was unnecessary and impermissible.
The court emphasized that while the Speaker has the discretion to inquire into the authenticity of resignations, the rules indicate that resignations submitted personally to the Speaker, which are verified as voluntary and genuine, can be accepted immediately. In this instance, however, the court noted that the independent MLAs were accompanied by BJP leaders, complicating the scenario.
Justice Sharma highlighted that the term “may” in the rules implies the Speaker’s discretion in accepting or rejecting resignation letters, as opposed to an obligatory “shall.” This discretionary power, coupled with the Speaker’s authority to ensure the resignation’s genuineness, places the decision beyond the court’s purview for direct interference, although subject to judicial review.
Legal representation for the petitioners was provided by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, along with advocates Anshul Bansal, Ajay Vaidya, Prabhas Bajaj, Shriyek Sharda, and Rangasaran Mohan. The Speaker’s legal team included Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and KS Banyal, with advocates Rohit Sharma, Udya Singh Banyal, Aprajita Jamwal, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani, and Rishabh Parikh. The Election Commission of India was represented by Senior Advocate Ankush Dass Sood and advocate Arjun Lal.
Sh__Hoshyar_Singh_Chambyal_and_Ors_vs_Hon_ble_Speaker_and_Ors
