ROLE OF SPEAKER, STATE ASSEMBLY VIS-A-VIS ANTI DEFECTION LAW & SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE(2020) скачать в хорошем качестве

ROLE OF SPEAKER, STATE ASSEMBLY VIS-A-VIS ANTI DEFECTION LAW & SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE(2020)

@AntiDefectionAct #ConstitutionSchedule10 #RajasthanCrisis @RoleOfSpeaker #RajasthanHighCourt #Article178 #IndianConstitutionArticle178 On 4th December, 2017, Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, then Chairman of Rajya Sabha passed an order disqualifying Mr. Sharad Yadav from being a Member of the House in terms of para 2 (1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. He relied on the 1994 judgment of Supreme Court in Ravi Naik Vs. Union of India. He very aptly observed: it is crystal clear that by his conduct, actions and speeches, the Respondent, Shri Sharad Yadav, has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party, Janata Dal (United) by which  he was set up as a candidate for election to the Rajya Sabha from the State of Bihar in 2016 and elected as such Member. I have quoted this line to show that the conduct of the person is important not the formal relinquishment of the membership of the party. f this is the concern of a noted parliamentarian and at present Vice President of India, then how proper it is for Rajasthan High Court to entertain the petition against a show cause notice given by speaker? So the big question is: Whether the petition filed in the High Court by an MLA is maintainable? Just see the legal provision: The question as to whether a member of a House of Parliament or State Legislature has become subject to disqualification will be determined by the Chairman/ Speaker of the House and such decision will be final. So the show cause notice was very much within the power of speaker and he should not be obstructed to come to the final decision. In the case of Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha Vs Kuldeep Bishnoi & Ors. (AIR 2013 SC 120), the Speaker of the Assembly practically took about four years in deciding the petition of disqualification. Supreme Court vide its Order dated the 28th of September, 2012, had to give a direction to the Speaker to decide the petition within three months.  In another case, Mayawati Vs Markandeya Chand & Ors (1998 7 SCC 517)], It is high time to effectively thwart the evil of political defections, which if left uncurbed are likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it.  It was the year 1377, Sir Thomas Hungerford was named the first Speaker of the English Parliament. For over 642 years, this position has been one of the most important ones in democratically-elected legislatures around the world. Article 178 of the Indian Constitution provides that every Legislative Assembly of a State shall, choose one of its Members as Speaker. Anyway let us see how Supreme court is responding to the case of speaker? What do you think? Please let me know in comment section. Please wish me good luck by subscribing my channel. Thank you Please watch other videos on important and contemporary issue.    • #CustodyDeath  OR #PoliceTorture in Police...      • पुलिस हिरासत में मौत और अत्याचार कैसे रोके...      • CHINESE APPS BAN : NATIONAL INTEREST AND L...      • पतंजलि  का  कोरोनिल : एक  संस्थागत  चूक      • SECTION 37 OF NDPS ACT: IRRATIONAL RESTRIC...      • Article 19: Why Freedom of Press is essent...      • Enforceability of  Force Majeure in Lease ...      • ARTICLE 19: WHY RIGHT TO FREEDOM  IS OFTEN...      • Article 18: HOW ABOLITION OF TITLE IS A RI...      • Article 17: WHY ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILIT...   Email id: [email protected]