LAXMAN JAIDEV SATPATHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The six petitioners in this writ petition were elected members of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. On 1/05/1991 the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in exercise of the powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution [introduced by the Con- stitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985] made an order disqualifying them on the ground of defection.

(2.) One of the reliefs sought in the writ petition was a declaration as to the invalidity of the amendment itself by which the Tenth Schedule was introduced. That aspect of the matter is now covered by the pronouncement of the Constitutional bench of this court made on 12/11/1991 in Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu. It was held that the amending Bill containing a provision like Paragraph 7 of the Tenth schedule attracted the proviso to Article 368 (2) of the Constitution and the non-compliance with requirements of the said proviso had the effect of invalidating the Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule. The wider proposition that the effect of such non-compliance was to render the whole of the Tenth Schedule itself as a mere abortive attempt to amend was not accepted.

(3.) The aspects and contentions in the present petition that survive for consideration pertain to, and turn on the construction of certain provisions of the Tenth Schedule as to when a split could be said to take place whether it is a one time transaction occurring at a fixed point of time or whether the expression can take within its ambit a series of connected or correlated events depending on the fact situation of each case. It is appropriate that the writ petition is examined under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High court.