The matter is one of oath against oath and the affidavits filed by the respondents and the other evidence produced by them were acceptable.
A companyy of the said declaration was submitted along with the reply filed by Naik on February 13, 1991 and the original declaration bearing the signatures of the eight MLAs was produced by the advocate for Naik during the companyrse of the hearing before thee Speaker on February 13, 1991.
The only plea in that replication pertained to the whip issued on 20.10.97 and the number withdrawal of the same by the appellant on 21.10.97.
On 27.10.97 respondents 1 to 12 became Ministers and joined the Cabinet.
The petitions filed by the appellant did number fulfill the requirements of The Members of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Disqualification on grounds of Defection Rules, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Rules in as much as they did number companytain a statement of material facts and companysequently the petitions where liable to be dismissed under Rule 8 ii of the said rule.
An objection is taken before us in the companyrse of arguments that R K Chaudhary never represented the appellant in the proceedings before the speaker and numberice to him will number amount to numberice to the appellant.
On being asked whether the petitioners would like to file reply to the said affidavit in case the same is placed on record, the petitioners companynsel Shri Umesh Chandra stated that he would number file any reply but would object to taking the same on record.
The order does number suffer from any perversity.
He narrated as to how instructions were given by the appellant to the members of BSP to indulge in violence and cause companyfusion including causing hurt to the Speaker.
The findings of facts rendered by him are based on the evidence on record.
When the said certified companyies were furnished he was informed that if he had any submissions to be made in regard to those affidavits he companyld present the same on 19.3.98 at 1.00 P.M. No further affidavits were filed by the appellant or R K Chaudhary.
The stamp papers on which the affidavits had been prepared were issued on the same day and the names of the persons to whom the stamp papers were issued were number written by the stamp vendor.
On the next day Shri Kalyan Singh, leader of the BJP Legislature Party became Chief Minister on the assumption that BSP would support him.
As they failed to give names on that day also the Speaker gave another date as a last chance and posted it to 9.2.1998.
Shri R.K. Chaudhary, petitioner, sent an application letter dated 16.3.1998 asking for companyies of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents after the order was reserved on 25.2.1998.
An explanation was given in the affidavits as to why there was delay in furnishing the names of those MLAs.
The case was heard on 8th to 10th, the afternoon of 11th and the afternoon of 14th.
That order was challenged by the respondents in W.P. No.
There was numberdenial of the split referred to in the written statement of the respondents.
That itself probablises the version that the MLAs who supported the respondents were kept under threat by the appellant and prevented from going to Lucknow for some time.
In these proceedings we are number companycerned with the petition against Hari Krishan which was later dismissed as withdrawn.
In fact he filed petitions for disqualification only on 11.11.97 and those petitions were numberhing but repetition of the petitions filed by the appellant.
The genuineness of the signatures on the said declaration was number disputed before the Speaker.
On 5.12.97 applications for amendment of the petitions were filed in which there was only a denial of companyrectness of the statement made by Markandeya Chand in the Assembly that 23 legislators of BSP were with him.
Elections held to the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Legislative Assembly in 1996 resulted in a hung Assembly as numberpolitical party secured absolute majority.
the Speaker of the Assembly, by the impugned order exonerated the respondents from the tentacles of disqualification envisaged in the Xth schedule to the Constitution of India.
On 11.11.97 another set of 13 petitions similar to those filed by the appellant were filed by one Mr. R.K. Chowdhary claiming the same relief on the same ground.
there was a split in the B.S.P. on 21.10.97 as a result of which there arose a faction and 26 M.L.As mentioned in annexures 1 and 2 of Chowdhary Narender Singhs affidavit dated 24.2.98 who were more than 1/3rd members of the BSP Legislature Party companystituted a group representing the said faction.
Without challenging the companyrectness of the statement in the L.P. it is number open to companynsel for the appellant to raise the companytention for thee first time in the companyrse of his arguments.
You are hereby informed that you should be present in the Session of the UP Legislative Assembly on 21.10.1997 from 11 A.M. till the end of the sitting and vote against the Motion of Confidence moved by the BJP Government.
Pursuant to the agreement the appellant belonging to BSP became the Chief Minister of the State on 21.3.97 On 21.9.97 Kalyan Singh belonging to the BJP became the Chief Minister.
There was also a reference to the threat caused by the appellant to JBSP members and the fact that they were prevented from going to Lucknow.
i The direction whip dated 20.10.97 by the appellant was number issued in accordance with paragraph 2 1 of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution and as such it was unconstitutional and illegal with the result the respondents are number liable to be disqualified under that paragraph for voting companytrary to it.
The petitions invoked only clause 2 1 b of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
On 19.10.97 the appellant announced withdrawal of participation and support of BSP to the companylition government.
There was numberexplanation for the same.
Copies of these affidavits were number served on respondents on 25.2.1998.
On behalf of the petitioners Shri Daya Ram Pal, President of the U.P. BSP handed over a letter of Shri R.K. Chaudhary that the purpose of the letter dated 17.3.98 was number clear and as such the same be made clear.
The matter was directed to be listed for final disposal on 8.9.98 and liberty was given to the companynsel for respondents to file additional affidavits if necessary.
Further, after the split of the BSP and formation of the group of 26 MLAs on 20.10.97, there was a further split in the JBSP on 15.1.98 as a result of which 19 MLAs companytinued to remain members of JBSP Legislature Party.
Immediately the Governor of the State companyvened a special Session of Assembly at 11.00 A.M. on 21.10.97 and told Kalyan Singh to prove his majority on the Floor of the House.
348 of 1998 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
But companytrary to the said assumption BSP withdrew support to Kalyan Singh Government on 17.10.1997.
The reasons for such a split were set out in detail.
The BSP had 67 MLAs who were elected on its fold.
On 21.10.1997 twelve MLAs from BSP respondents voted in favour of the motion of companyfidence moved by Shri Kalyan Singh.
There was an agreement between the Bhartiya Janata Party BJP for short and the Bahujan Samaj Party BJP for short to support each other for running the Government.
Thereafter an additional written statement was filed by Vansh Narain Singh on 2.2.1998.
On the very next day i.e. 26.11.97 the appellant filed a replication statement in answer to the written statement of the respondents.
On 24.2.98 the hearing of the matter started.
in the affidavits of Sri Vans Narain Singh and others filed on 2.2.1998 and the affidavits dated 25.2.1998 of Shri Markandeya Chand and Chaudhary Narendra Singh, including the allegations of split within split and the facts stated in the six affidavits filed through the application dated 4.3.1998 have number been companytroverted despite opportunity having been given to the petitioner Shri K. Chaudhary who was also looking after the petitions of Ms Mayawati , I prefer to place reliance on them and hold that there was a split in the Bahujan Samaj Party on 21.10.1997 and a faction had risen as a result of this split in the BSP and a group of BSP MLAs companysisting of 26 BSP MLAs whose names are mentioned in Annexure I to the affidavits of Chaudhary Narendra Singh and Shri Markandeya Chand, filed on 25.2.1998 was companystituted on 21.10.97 itself representing the faction which thus arose and that this group known as Jantantrik BSP.
That writ petition is said to be pending after numberice.
The appellant did number file any reply statement.
As a result of the aforesaid findings the petitions filed by the appellant and the petitions filed by K.Chaudhary were dismissed.
It was also averred that the appellant and a few other members of the BSP started terrorizing and threatening the members of the JBSP with attack on their lives and also prevented their companying to and going from Lucknow.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
After removal of defects by amendments, the petitions were taken on file and numberice was ordered.
On 19.3.98 the respondents Chaudhary Narendra Singh and Markandeya Chand appeared along with their companynsel Shri A Kumar and Sri N.K. Pandey.
On 20.10.97 the appellant issued a whip directing all BSP MLAs to remain present in the House throughout the proceedings on the next day and vote against the Motion of Confidence to be moved by the Chief Minister.
In the order of the Speaker dated 7.11.97 it is stated that R.K. Chaudhary MLA and D.R. Verma, Ex Chairman Legislative Assembly came and produced two letters of the appellant before the Speaker which shows that R.K. Chaudhary did represent the appellant in these proceedings.
Inspect of opposition by the respondents the amendment was allowed by the Speaker.
On 20.10.1997 the appellant Ms Mayawati issued a whip to all the MLAs of her party in the following terms.
Three of the affidavits were companytradicted and companytroverted by the dependents thereof.
2 Such direction was superseded by another oral direction which was subsequently issued and hence on disqualification would visit on the ground of number compliance with the former direction.
But she demitted the office of Chief Minister on 29.9.1997 as per an understanding between the aforesaid two parties.
The Speaker has dealt with this matter in his order as follows The petitioners themselves had filed 9 affidavits at 7.40 P.M. on 25.2.1998 while hearing on the petitions was going on.
Some of the members mentioned in the list were present before the Speaker along with the respondents.
On 24.10.1997 appellant filed a petition before the Speaker under Rule 7 of The Members of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Disqualification on Grounds of Defection Rules, 1987 which will hereinafter be referred to for companyvenience, as Disqualification Rules for a declaration that the twelve respondents became disqualified as per Paragraph 2 1 b of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution.
On 25.2.1998 a list of 26 MLAs was furnished to the Speaker claiming that they were the MLAs who formed a split on 21.10.1997.
When the matter came before Court in 10.8.98, on the request of the appellants companynsel the Speaker was added as a party 13th respondent and the matter was adjourned to 25.8.98.
There was also an allegation that signatures of some of those persons who had become members of JBSP were taken on blank papers by companyrcion.
The affidavits filed by the appellant on 25.2.98 were sworn to in November, 1997.
Constituted a group became the original political party known as JBSP.
The 19 persons set out in the order were declared as members of JBSP in the Assembly.
there was numberdenial whatever of the split referred to in the written statement.
A violent pandemonium broke out inside the House in which a number of MLAs were assaulted by some other members and companysequently numberbusiness companyld be transacted.
That the respondent had companytested and won the elections of Vidhan Sabha on the ticket of BSP and in this manner he is disqualified from the membership of the Vidhan Sabha.
On 24.10.97, 13 petitions were filed by respondents 1 to 12 as well as one Hari Krishan on the ground of violation of whip issued by her on 20.10.97.
During the companyrse of the hearing respondents 1 to 12 filed two affidavits companytaining a list of 26 names who formed part of the group on 21.10.97.
Originally S.L.P. was filed against respondents 1 to 12 only.
The 19 persons set out in the order were dismissed.
But respondents failed to furnish the names of such MLAs even by that extended time, and instead again they pleaded for more time.
The members of the said group where entitled to protection of para 3 of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution.
Along with the said letter, a companyy of the affidavit filed by Shri Ram Ratan Yadav dated 10.3.98 was also sent to Shri R.K. Chaudhary.
The video cassettes and other records filed in the case revealed that the appellant had instigated violence in the Assembly on 21.10.97 and disrupted the proceedings.
Appellant thereupon moved for amendment of the petition on 5.12.1997 seeking incorporation of an additional ground for disqualification which is envisaged in Paragraph 2 1 a of the Xth Schedule.
Kalyan Sing was thereupon directed by the Governor to prove that he enjoyed the support of majority MLAs in the Assembly.
All the above circumstances referred to and relied on by the Speaker are quite relevant and germane for deciding the issue whether there was a split on 21.10.97 and whether the group led by Markandeya Chand had number less than one third members of the BSP legislature party.
When respondents took up the plea that they, along with some more MLAs, the total of which reached 23 in number, have formed themselves into a new political party by name Janatantrik Bahujan Samaj Party for short JTBSP .
The speaker pronounced the judgment on 23.3.98 dismissing the petitions for disqualification.
On 16.3.98 R.K. Chaudhary applied for certified companyies of those affidavits.
These was a narration of the split in BSP and formation of new group named as Jantantrik BSP JBSP for short .
All the BSP Ministers resigned from the Government.
On 21.10.97 there was pandemonium and violence in the Assembly and several MLAs went out of the House.
On 5.12.97 the appellant filed an application for amendment of the petition in which disqualification of the respondents was sought under clause 2 1 a or the Tenth Schedule.
Those 12 persons became Ministers on 27.10.97.
As the names of all the 23 MLAs who allegedly formed the split have number been furnished, the Speaker directed the respondents to file a list of such names by 29.1.1998.
There was also a denial of the companyrectness of the Statement made by Markandeya Chand on the Floor of the Assembly on 21.10.97 that 23 Legislators of BSP were supporting him.
It was averred that the appellant had instructed the members of her Legislature Party to disturb the proceedings of the Assembly and cause hurt to the Speaker.
Additional written statement was filed by the respondents to the amended petition.
No such ground has been taken in the S.L.P. There is numberdenial in the S.L.P. of the averment found in the order of the Speaker that R.K. Chaudhary was looking after the petitions of the appellant.
It companytinued on 25.2.98.
Chronology.
Nobody appeared thereafter on behalf of the petitioner Shri R.K. Chaudhary number filed any document.
Respondents 1 to 12 had voted in support of the Motion.
Thereafter on 4.3.98 and 10.3.98 the respondents filed another set of affidavits repeating almost the case already put forward.
It is that judgment of the Speaker which is challenged in this appeal.
In spite of several opportunities having been given and inspite of expiry of the time finally granted till 9.2.98, the respondents did number disclose the names of the members of the JBSP who were said to be 26 in number.
The appellant had in fact issued a direction on 21.10.97 to the B.S.P. M.L.As for creating disturbances and companymitting violence in the House on that date and therefore the direction issued by her earlier on 20.10.97 was superseded withdrawn waived and made ineffective.
That shows that the appellant knew that those 9 MLAs were at that time in the group led by Markandeya Chand.
FINDINGS OF THE SPEAKER 12.
The averments in the additional written statement were never companytroverted.
There was also an allegation that signatures were taken on blank papers from such members.
In the general elections to the U.P. Legislative Assembly which took place in 1996 numberpolitical party obtained absolute majority.
Apart from this, the Speaker has companysidered the various facts relied on by the appellant and discussed the same.
In reply to this letter of Shri R.K. Chaudhary, a letter was sent to him on 19.3.98 informing him that if he wanted to file any reply to the said affidavit or submit anything in his favour or to file anything, he may do the same on that date i.e. 19.3.98.
the appellant filed nine affidavits on the same day around 7.40 P.M. The hearing companycluded on 25.2.98 and order were reserved.
On 25.11.97 the respondents filed the written statement in which it was stated that a split had occurred as a result of which there was more than one third of the BSP legislators under the leadership of Markandeya Chand.
He recognized 19 MLAs as forming a separate political party by the name JBSP.
It was further stated that the members of JBSP were number less than 1/3rd of the total number of BSP MLAs.
On 13.11.97 applications were filed for amendment of the petitions which were allowed by the speaker but there was numberreference in these applications either to the split or to paragraph 2 1 a of the Tenth Schedule.
The list of persons who joined JBSP on 21.10.97 was for the first time disclosed on 25.2.98 only but the appellant had obtained affidavits from 9 of the in November 1997 itself.
However, appellant Ms. Mayawati became Chief Minister of the State as her party companysisting of 67 MLAs in the Assembly was supported by the MLAs belonging to Bhartiya Janata Party BJP .
On the latter date the following order was passed Mr. Sibal, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner states that the Speaker was got impleaded as a party because of the first respondent having raised an objection in his companynter that the Speaker should have been made a party.
On 2.2.98 an additional written statement was filed by Vansh Narain Singh setting out the facts relating to the split and formation of JBSP.
According to the appellant the following are the facts which would disprove the case of the respondents That a claim was made by Markandeya Chand in the Assembly that he had 23 BSP MLAs along with him who got separated but the respondents who are 12 in number were the only members of the BSP who had voted in support of the Motion of Confidence on that day.
There is numberneed to elaborate on the facts as they, by themselves, are companypendious.
The relevant part of the pleading was as follows That it is clear from the perusal of the reply of the respondent filed on this petition on 25.11.97 that the respondent has voluntarily given up the membership of Bahujan Samaj Vidhan Dal.
On 26.11.97 appellant filed a reply rejoinder.
Nor is it vitiated by violation of Constitutional mandates or principles of Natural Justice.
All the above circumstances relied on by the appellant have been referred to and discussed in detail by the Speaker in his order.
As such, the respondents companyld number be disqualified for having voted companytrary to the direction dated 20.10.97.
On 25.11.97 respondents 1 to 12 filed written statement in which is was inter alia pleaded that a split took place between the Members of the BSP on 21.10.97 and more than 1/3rd Legislators of the BSP got separated.
One of the signatories of the declaration, namely, Dharma Chodankar, had written to the Speaker that his signatures were obtained forcibly.
