REGD. NO. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II—Section 3-Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 228] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2002/PHALGUNA10,1923
691 GI/2002
(1)2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY PART II—SEc.3(ii)] __34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY [PART II-^SEC. 3(ii)]
LOK SABHASECRETAMAT
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th February, 2002
S. O. 267(E).—The following Decision dated 6 January, 2002 of the Speaker, Lok Sabha given under the Tenth, Schedule to the Constitution of India is hereby notified :—
In the matter of petition filed by Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, MP and Leader of Rashtriya Janata Dal in Lok Sabha against Shri Sukdeo Paswan and Mohammad Anwarul Haque, MPs under rule 6 of the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985.
At the time of Constitution of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha, the Rashtriy a Janata Dal Legislature Party had a strength of seven members with Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh as its leader.
2, On 28 April, 2001 Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Sarvashri Sukdeo Paswan and Nagmam", membersbelonging to Rashtriya Janata Dal (hereinafter referred to as RJD) vide their joint letter dated 28 April, 2001, intimated me about split in RJD and formation of RJD (Democratic) party in Lok Sabha comprising of the said three members. On the same day a letter dated 28 April, 2001 was also received from Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, President, RJD intimating me about expulsion of Shri Nagmani, MP from RJD.
3.1 caused forwarding of copies of both theletters to Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, MP and leader of RJD in Lok Sabha on 2 May, 2001 for his comments in the matter.
4. Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh vide his letter dated 12 July, 2001 made the following submissions :—
(1) RJDhadexpeUedShriNagmanifromtheprimarymernbershrpofmepartyon28 April, 2001 and intimated about the same to Speaker on the same day. It was only thereafter that day that Shri Nagmani alongwith other two members addressed a communication to the Speaker intimating about their decision to split-away fromRJD.
It, therefore, became imperative to takenote of the time of receipt of both the communications.
(ii) An expelled memberbecomes unattached. Hence a claim by such a member of formation of a group was not legitimate.
(iii) Consequently the claim for split by Shri Nagmani, who had since been expelled, alongwith two other members (Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Shri Sukdeo Paswan) was not a valid claim for split in terms of para 3 of the Tenth Schedule.
(iv) Mo political group by the name of RJD (Democratic) had been formed outside the House. No group by mat name had even b een formed inside Bihar Vidhan Sabha. B esides, they had not given any intimation regarding the policies, constitution, rules/regulations etc. of their group.
(v) Moreover parleys were on by these members with NDA with aview to joining them, which itself was a form of defection.
5. On 6 August, 2001, a personal hearing was given by me to Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh at his request.
6. During the hearing, while reaffirming the submissions made by him in his letter dated 12 July, 2001, Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh also contented that Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Shri Sukdeo Paswan had merged with another party. Since it was an entirely new contention, he was requosted to furnish the requisite information in writing.
7. On 7 August, 2001, Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh filed a petition against Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Shri Sukdeo Paswan, MPs under rule 6 of the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Anti Defection Rules).
Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) made the following submissions in his petition: —
"(1) Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Shri Sukdeo Paswan (hereinafter referred to as respondents) had left RJD and joined Bharatiya Loktantrik Party while a decision was yet to be taken on their claim for split (made alongwith Shri Nagmani).
(2) From the action and conduct of the respondents, it was clear that they merged with Bharatiya Loktantrik Party. Since the respondents do not constitute 2/3rd of the strength of RJD, they do not enjoy the protection underpara 4 of the Tenth Schedule.
5 (3) Petitioner prayed for disqualification of the respondents under para 2(l)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution for having voluntarily given up the membership of RJD."
8. Subsequently the petitionervide his letter dated 13 August, 2001 had requested that the submissions made by him in his petition might also be taken note of in thecaseofsplitinRJD.
9. After having satisfied myself in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Anti-Defection Rules thatthepetition complied with the requirements of rule 6,1 caused copies of the petition to be forwarded to the respondents in terms of Rule 7(3) (a) of the Anti Defection Rules for furnishing their comments.
10. The respondents in their comments furnished vide then- two identical letters dated 27 August, 2001 denied either joining or forming any new political party by the name of Bharatiya Loktantrik Party. They stated mat there was a vertical split in RJD on 28 April, 2001 and consequently they together with Shri Nagmani formed a separate political party viz. Rashtriya Janata Dal (Democratic). They constituted more than l/3rd of the strength of RJD in Lok Sabha.
11. The issues for consideration in this case are whether:—
(i) the fact of expulsion of Shri Nagmani from RJD, stated to have taken place before split in the party, has relevance in this case.
(it) the claim made by the respondents and Shri Nagmani of a split in RJD is valid in terms of para 3 of the Tenth Schedule.
(iii) the respondents had merged with Bharatiya Lokiantrik Party.
12. For arriving at a decision on the above issues, I took note of the following facts :—
(a) The claimed split in RJD took place in April, 2001. Thethree members who claimed the split do constitute one- third of the existing strength ofRJD in Lok Sabha.
(b) The decision on the claim of split in RJD has, however, been pending for want of comments from the petitioner which were called for from him in his capacity of the leader of RJD legislature party in Lok Sabha.
(c) Had the comments of the petitioner been furnished earlier, the same would have facilitated taking decision on the claim for sprit in RJD wellbefore filing of theperition.
(d) Furthermore, the request by the petitioner for expressing his views on claim for split to me in person, further delayed the decision in the case.
Issue numbers (i) & (ii) (vide para 11)
13. Tenth Schedule to the Constitution does not contain provisions to cope with situations arising out of expulsion of members from primary membership of their political parties. Consequent upon the decision of the Speaker, Tenth Lok Sabha in the Janata Dal case, dated 1 June, 1993, the practice in Lok Sabha has been to seat the expelled members separately without any change in theirparty affiliation, hi party position etc., in Lok Sabha.
Hence an expulsion of a member from the primary membership of his political party does not affect his party affiliation in Lok Sabha.
14. In view of the foregoing, despite expulsion of Shri Nagmani from the membership of RJD political party, there would not be any consequential change hi the strength of RJD legislature party in Lok Sabha. Consequently the issue whether intimation of expulsion of Shri Nagmani from RJD was receiv ed earlier than claim of split in RJD by Shri Nagmani and others or subsequently, had no relevance.
The issue number (i) is, therefore answered in negative.
15. hi terms of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the provisions regarding disqualification on ground of defection do not apply where members make a claim that they constitute a group representing a faction which has arisen as a result of split in their original political party and such group consists of not less than one-third of the members of such Legislature Party.
The said three members do constitute one-third of the existing strength of RJD in Lok Sabha, which is seven.
16. The only point which is relevant is that at the time of claim for split in RJD, (he three members who made the claim did constitute l/3rdofthe strength ofRJDinLok Sabha.
17.1 accordingly on 30 August, 2001 decided to — (i) treat Sarvashri Mohammad Anwarul Haque, Sukdeo Paswan and Nagmani, as belonging to RJD (Democratic) hi Lok Sabha, for functional purposes, and (ii) seat them separately in the House.
£9/tf//*.3_-2_
6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC.3(JJ)]The members were intimated in writing about my decision and necessary changes were made in party position in Lok Sabha.
The issue number (ii) is, therefore, answered in affirmative.
Issue number (ill) (vide para 11)
18, The two respondents in their comments (at Para 10 supra) stated that they had neither formed any political party by the name of Bharatiya Loktantrik Party nor joined any such Parry. Besides no claim has been made by any member regarding formation of any party by the name Bharatiya Loktantrik Party in Lok Sabha.
Hence the contention made by the petitioner that the respondents had merged with "Bharatiya Loktantrik Party' has no merit.
In view of the above discussion, issue number (iii) is answered in negative.
ORDER
19. "In exercise of thepowers conferred upon me under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. I, G.M.C. Balayogi, Speaker, Lok Sabha, hereby decide that the petition dated 7 August, 2001 given by Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, MP against Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Shri Sukdeo Paswan, MPs has no merit and Mohammad Anwarul Haque and Shri Sukdeo Paswan have not incurred any disqualification in terms of paragraph 2(1 )(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
I accordingly dismiss the petition."
New Delhi Dated the 6th January, 2002
G.M.C. BALAYOGL Speaker
[No. 46/15/2002/T]
G. C. MALHOTRA, Secy. General Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Maynpuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-] 10054,