new Delhi: In the case of rebel MLAs in Rajasthan Government, the Supreme Court will hear on Monday the petition of the Speaker of the Assembly. The Supreme Court will hear about whether the High Court can hear the petition filed against the notice of the Speaker. That is, this decision of the Supreme Court can also be important because if such a situation arises in the future, then the decision can be applied to it as well.
The High Court’s decision was to come on Friday on the petition of Sachin Pilot and other rebel MLAs in this case, but in view of the Supreme Court hearing the matter on Monday, the High Court adjourned its decision.
On Thursday, the Speaker’s petition was heard in the Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court had not stayed the Rajasthan High Court’s decision on Friday, but said that the decision of the High Court will not be final.
The decision of the Supreme Court can affect the decision of the High Court, due to which the High Court did not give its decision on Friday. On Thursday, the Supreme Court said that it would hear the matter in detail, for which the Supreme Court had set a date for Monday. During the hearing, it was said in the Supreme Court on behalf of the speaker that the High Court cannot interfere in such a case before taking any decision.
In the hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court remarked that the voice of dissenting legislators cannot be suppressed in this way, they are the elected representatives of the public,
Then democracy will end, can they not express their disagreement.
Justice Arun Mishra had asked Kapil Sibal, the lawyer for the speaker, to assume that if a leader does not trust another leader, will he be disqualified for raising his voice, he cannot be disqualified while in the party, then this one Equipment will be made and no one can raise voice, in democracy, the voice of dissatisfaction cannot stop like this.
The Supreme Court said that some issues are related to the internal democracy of the party.
Kapil Sibal said that the speaker should be allowed to decide whether these MLAs can be acted upon for activity outside the assembly
Lawyer’s counsel Mukul Rohatgi said that the speaker himself has twice agreed to defer action in the High Court.
The Supreme Court said that these are important questions related to democracy. How will democracy run? These are very serious issues. This matter will be heard in detail, for this a detailed hearing will be required.
Kapil Sibal referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the 1992 Kihoto Holohon case in the Supreme Court, saying that according to this decision, the court cannot interfere before the Speaker’s decision on the issue of disqualification.
Any petition filed in the court before the disqualification process is not hearable.
Sibal referred to a recent order of the Supreme Court in another case in which the Supreme Court had urged the speaker to take a decision within a reasonable time, and not an order to the speaker or disqualify the speaker on the due date. Were told to complete or stop the process.