 |
|
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on Friday, temporarily halting the disqualification proceedings against six MLAs in Himachal Pradesh who had been appointed as Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPS). This decision provides considerable relief to the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu-led state government, which had faced legal challenges regarding these appointments. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh had previously deemed the appointments illegal and unconstitutional, arguing that the protection from disqualification granted under the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Members (Removal of Disqualifications) Act, 1971, was invalid. This paved the way for the initiation of disqualification proceedings against the six MLAs, potentially jeopardizing their positions in the legislative assembly.
The Supreme Court's intervention, however, significantly alters the situation. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, specifically stayed paragraph 50 of the High Court's November 13th judgment. This paragraph was crucial, as it explicitly declared the protection granted to the MLAs under Section 3(d) of the 1971 Act illegal and unconstitutional. By staying this paragraph, the Supreme Court effectively prevents the immediate initiation of disqualification proceedings. While the MLAs will not retain their positions as CPS, they will continue to serve as members of the legislative assembly until the matter is fully resolved. The Court’s decision emphasizes that the status quo must be maintained pending a full hearing.
The Supreme Court's decision is not a blanket reversal of the High Court's judgment. The Court clarified that it was only staying the specific part of the verdict that directly related to the disqualification proceedings. The remaining portions of the High Court’s decision, including its declaration of the 2006 Act as void, remain in effect. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explicitly instructed the Himachal Pradesh government not to make any further appointments of CPS or Parliamentary Secretaries, highlighting the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding these positions. The court's caution underscores the complex legal issues surrounding the creation and functioning of such roles within the state legislative framework.
The case involves a broader legal debate regarding the constitutionality of appointing CPS and PSs and the associated implications for holding office of profit. The Supreme Court acknowledged that different High Courts across India have rendered conflicting judgments on this matter. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in legal interpretation and pointed to pending similar cases from other states, including Chhattisgarh and West Bengal. The legal arguments presented by both sides reflect the intricate interplay between state legislative powers and constitutional principles regarding office of profit. The state government, represented by prominent legal counsel, argued that there were inconsistencies in how High Courts have addressed the issue, while opposing counsel vehemently contended against the appointments and the legal protection provided to the MLAs.
The Supreme Court’s actions also suggest a recognition of the significant political implications of the case. The disqualification of six MLAs could have potentially destabilized the state government. By temporarily suspending the disqualification proceedings, the court allows time for a more thorough examination of the legal issues involved. The High Court’s judgment highlighted the significant power and access to governmental processes enjoyed by CPS and PSs, differentiating their roles from ordinary MLAs. This discrepancy is central to the ongoing legal debate about whether such appointments constitute holding an office of profit, triggering disqualification under constitutional provisions.
The case is scheduled for further hearing after a month, providing sufficient time for both sides to submit their arguments. The Supreme Court's decision highlights the continuing importance of the legal issues involved and the need for a comprehensive and consistent approach from the judiciary. The outcome of this case will not only impact the political landscape of Himachal Pradesh but also have significant implications for other states grappling with similar challenges concerning the appointments of parliamentary secretaries and the interpretation of laws related to office of profit.
Source: Top Court Stays Disqualification Of 6 Himachal MLAs Appointed As Parliamentary Secretaries