T A RAJENDRAN Vs. VAKKAM B PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent is the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The petitioner submits that while continuing in that office, with all the paraphernalia attached thereto he is contesting the Parliamentary Election from Alleppey as a candidate of a political party. The petitioner submits that this is inconsistent with the traditions of independence and impartiality of the office of the Speaker, that in similar situations, persons holding the office of Speaker had resigned from that office to contest the elections and that refusal of the first respondent to do likewise sets up a very bad precedent undermining the basic tenets of our constitutional Government. He, therefore, seeks the removal of the first respondent from the office of the Speaker of the Kerala Legislature. It is submitted that it was assumed in the decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court reported in Nesamony v. T. M. Varghese, AIR 1952 Trav Co. 66, that the Speaker of the Legislature is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Advocate General, who was present in Court when the Original Petition came up for admission, was requested to assist the Court in dealing with the issue. He submitted that there is no express prohibition anywhere in the Constitution of India or the Representation of the People Act disabling the first respondent from contesting a Parliamentary election while holding the office of the Speaker. He also submitted that Art.212 of the Constitution precludes this Court from granting the relief sought by the petitioner. The Advocate General also submitted that the impropriety, if any, in the candidature or style of functioning of one of the candidates is a matter to be raised before the Election Commission or in an election petition, if one such becomes necessary.

(3.) True it is that Art.212 of the Constitution of India disables this Court from granting the relief of removal of the Speaker of the Legislature. The question whether the conduct of the person holding the office of the Speaker disentitles him from continuing in that office is a matter for the House to decide. The decision reported in AIR 1952 T.C. 66 did not consider the effect of Art.212 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the decision reported in Nesamani v. Varghese, AIR 1952 Trav. Co. 205, however, held -