In a crucial judgment, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case of the Elections Commission of India (ECI) disqualification of six dissenting CM legislators, which knocked out the knot of the rebellion. By the bench hearing the petitions choosing to stay intact instead of lapsing the order, the bench issued notice but declined an immediate stay.
Hon’ble senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was defeated in a recent empanelment poll to Rajya Sabha due to the MLAs’ cross-voting, pleaded that the stay could make the petitions infructuous. Justice Khanna thought that the fresh polls must be fairly considered, and in the end, justice would have to decide whether to impose a stay or not.
Although not a direct call for temporary suspension of disciplinary proceedings, a judge would also need the requirement to listen to the two parties on issues of law. Finally, it put off communicating the response deadline for the following few weeks to deal with the issue broadly.
That’s when the electoral battle began, with the six Congress opposite-Congress legislators voting for the BJP—the ruling party—for the crucial Rajya Sabha poll, a move against the party’s line. The speaker powerfully invoked the anti-defection law, and as he did, he disposed of the rebel legislators from the state assembly.
The number of dissenters moving to the opposition Congress has made it difficult for the hill state to have a ruling majority. They were angered by removing one of their own who had shown the spirit of dissent. Thus, the stability of the hill state’s politics was damaged. Human Rights Activists Union looks forward to seeing the Supreme Court’s emphasis on a fine-tuned approach; they completely understand the boundaries for lawful protests.
