‘If People Are Switching Loyalties For Political Gains, Voters Must Teach Them A Lesson'
02 Oct 2019 07:51 pm
.jpg)
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a couple of writ petitions challenging the appointment of three ministers in the State cabinet less than 6 months before assembly elections.
The Division bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice GS Patel heard the petitions filed by Vijay Wadettivar and Surinder Arora (both active politicians) challenging the induction of Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil, Jaydatta Kshirsagar and Avinash Mahatekar as Cabinet Ministers and Minister of State, respectively in the Maharashtra State Cabinet of Ministers.
All three joined the ruling BJP-Shiv Sena alliance in the State after resigning from their respective parties.
The Court observed that in the absence of an adjudication by the Speaker on their alleged defection and disqualification, it was not possible for it to rule on it. The Court also observed that if politicians are switching loyalties during elections purely for political gains then voters must teach such 'defectors' a lesson.
Court dealt with Talekar's contention that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are disqualified on account of their defections and held that decision of Speaker of the House in this regard is final-
"This is not the law, for a person stands disqualified only on being so adjudged. No such adjudication has taken place in the case of Respondents Nos. 5 and 6, for the applications seeking their disqualification are admittedly pending. One cannot presume that they are disqualified merely because there is an allegation of disqualification made against them. That allegation will have to be inquired into by a process known to law."
Further, the bench examined the apprehensions expressed by Advocate Talekar regarding this trend of defections on the eve of elections-
Referring to the apex court's judgement in Manoj Narula v Union of India, Justice Dharmadhikari observed-
"The judgment of the Hon'ble Mr Justice Madan B. Lokur, as His Lordship then was, shows us the path in holding that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in the manner suggested in that case as well as in the present case. We cannot rewrite a Constitutional provision."
Other Judgment
Courts Shall Give Reasons For Rejecting Discharge Plea
'Lawyers Must Refuse To Abide By Calls For Strike By Associations'
How To Ascertain The Competency Of A Child Witness?
