Ravi S Naik v Union of India
Rule established
The expression 'voluntarily gives up his membership' in Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule has a wider connotation than resignation. In the absence of a formal resignation, the conclusion that a member has voluntarily given up his membership may be drawn from his conduct.
Facts
- The proceedings arose out of a political crisis in the Goa Legislative Assembly in which members elected on one party's ticket aligned themselves with a rival group.
- None of the members concerned had submitted a formal letter of resignation from the party on whose ticket he had been elected.
- Petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule were decided by the Speaker, who held them disqualified under Paragraph 2(1)(a) for having voluntarily given up their membership.
- The members contended that Paragraph 2(1)(a) requires a positive act of giving up membership, and that in the absence of resignation no disqualification could arise.
- The correctness of the Speaker's inference from their conduct was challenged, along with certain questions as to the procedure he had followed.
Issue
- Whether "voluntarily gives up his membership" in Paragraph 2(1)(a) requires a formal resignation, or whether the conclusion may be reached by inference from conduct.
Held
- A formal resignation is not necessary. The Court held that the expression has a wider connotation than resignation, and that where there is no formal resignation an inference may be drawn from the conduct of the member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the party. What matters is whether the member's course of conduct is consistent with continued membership of the party on whose ticket he was elected.
Ratio Decidendi
If the paragraph were confined to formal resignation, it would be defeated in every case by the simple expedient of not resigning, and the object of the Tenth Schedule, which is to prevent a legislator from repudiating in substance the platform on which he was elected, would be frustrated. The Constitution looks to substance rather than form, so conduct which is irreconcilable with membership of a party is treated as an abandonment of it.
How to use it in an exam
- The standard authority on the width of Paragraph 2(1)(a). Cite it whenever the facts show conduct rather than a written resignation.
- Typical conduct from which the inference is drawn: publicly supporting a rival party, attending its meetings or rallies, campaigning for its candidates, and writing to the Governor in support of another leader's claim to form a government.
- Contrast Paragraph 2(1)(b), the whip ground, which requires a direction and a vote or abstention contrary to it, and which carries the express defences of prior permission and condonation within fifteen days. Paragraph 2(1)(a) has no such defences.
- Note the practical consequence: speaking against the party line does not attract Paragraph 2(1)(b) at all, but may support an inference under Paragraph 2(1)(a).
- Read with Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu 1992 for the framework, since the Speaker's inference is itself reviewable only on the four narrow grounds laid down there, including perversity.
- Remember that after the 91st Amendment, 2003 the split defence in Paragraph 3 no longer exists, so a group defecting together cannot escape by numbers.
Source
Source: (1994) 2 SCC 641; AIR 1994 SC 1558; standard authority on the width of Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule; citation corrected to 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641; BENCH COMPOSITION NOT CONFIRMED, later judgments refer to a Bench presided over by Venkatachaliah CJ
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.