Two petitions against Speaker poll rule 'politically induced litigation': Bombay HC

MUMBAI: Bombay high court has held that the two public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Janak Vyas and a BJP MLA Girish Mahajan against the State’s amended rule of open voting for the election of its Assembly Speaker are “politically induced litigation.".
The HC bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik on March 9 dismissed the two petitions and forfeited a collective security deposit of Rs 12 lakh –including Rs 10 lakh from Mahajan--the two were directed to the shell for hearing the PIL after State’s preliminary objection to their maintainability.The amount shall be used for charitable purposes to provide better facilities to senior citizens residing in old age homes and destitute and orphan children in children's homes and orphanages. The HC directed its Registrar General to identify three homes each in the two categories.
The HC said the present petitions “serve only one purpose”—“clog the stream of justice by preventing the Court from considering more deserving cases…’’
“On a conspectus of the facts and circumstances…, we unhesitatingly hold that neither Vyas nor Mahajan has passed the test of uberrima fides. We, therefore, uphold the contention of “Advocate General Ashutosh) Kumbhakoni that these PIL petitions are not intended to secure public interest. We are of the clear view that political considerations have driven both Vyas and Mahajan to institute these proceedings, which are more in the nature of “politically induced litigation” rather than “public interest litigation”, held the HC.
The HC said, "Although both (senior counsel Mahesh) Jethmalani and (counsel Subhash) Jha have in unison taken exception to the amendments by branding them as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and in violation of Rules 223 to 225 of the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rules, they have utterly failed in their effort to demonstrate any infraction, much less genuine infraction as observed above."
The HC also said though Mahajan’s counsel Jethmalani contended that the chief minister in terms of the Constitutional scheme cannot make any recommendation to the Governor for fixing the date of election and that the recommendation has to be made by the council of ministers, "there is no pleading" in either PIL that the CM’s recommendation of March 9, 2022 as date of Speaker poll was made as CM and is not based on the collective decision of the council of ministers.
"There is also no reason to infer on facts and in the circumstances that the recommendation of the Chief Minister does not have the support of the council of ministers," held the HC.
The HC in the judgment made a reference to the progress of the proceedings two PIL petitions and said it was so done “ to highlight the obstinacy of Vyas and Mahajan to pursue the causes, despite being put on guard.” It had added, “ We would bear in mind such conduct, which is extremely relevant while deciding these PIL petitions.”
The HC citing guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court earlier said, "Our understanding of the guidelines in such paragraph does not persuade us to hold that calling for an election of the Speaker is within the discretion of the Governor.."
It also said “.Rule 6(1), as amended, if read with Article 168, leaves no manner of doubt that neither is any Constitutional provision offended nor can it be said with any degree of conviction that the death knell of democracy has been sounded with the amendments in Rules 6 and 7.
“Each Legislative Assembly of the States is independent and can amend their Rules of Procedure, framed under Article 208, subject to the known limitations. There is no law that requires the Rules of Procedure of all Legislative assemblies would be the same. There is nothing wrong in the Assembly in this State making amendments in its Rules of Procedure consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. That apart, 10 other States having different procedures is sufficient indication of the nation’s diversity in framing rules that are appropriate for each individual region," said the order.
The PIL had said the poll rule amended last December was “the death of democracy.”
The HC judgment said, “The procedure for election of the Speaker is charted out in Rules 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4). Since Article 178 of the Constitution refers to choosing of a member from amongst members of the Assembly to be the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, we do not see any reason to hold that the amendments introduced in the various sub-rules of Rule 6 would have the effect of offending the Constitutional provision in Article 178 or even inflicting a death blow to democracy."