NOBLE MATHEW Vs. JOSE.K.MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a lawyer practicing in this Court, has filed this Public Interest Litigation with a prayer for preventing the 1 st respondent Jose K. Mani, who is scheduled to take oath on 18.7.2018 as member of the Rajyasabha. The petitioner projects that the 1st respondent was elected from the Kottayam Loksabha Constituency on 1.6.2016 and his tenure as a Loksabha member will continue until 1.6.2019. The counsel accordingly submits that if the 1 st respondent takes oath as member of the Rajyasabha, it will amount to vacating his Loksabha seat as provided under Article 101 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, since the balance tenure of Loksabha is less than one year, there is no obligation under Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , to hold the bye-election for the Kottayam Constituency, and in that event, the people of Kottayam will remain unrepresented and this will affect their democratic and other rights.

(2.) Sri. Sivan Madathil as the counsel for the petitioner refers to the provisions of Article 101(3) of the Constitution of India and the first proviso thereto, which deals with the resignation of a member of Parliament on receiving membership of the other House, to project that in the event the Speaker does not accept the resignation of the concerned member of the Parliament, he has to continue as a member of the Loksabha to argue that similar interpretation has to be placed in respect of Article 101(3)(a) as well.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent, while he was the member of the Loksabha, has filed his nomination for his election as member of the Rajyasabha and since there was no opposing candidate, he was declared to be elected as member of the Rajyasabha and oath is to be administered today by the Chairman of the Rajyasabha. Projecting this, the counsel submits that the 1 st respondent is yet to resign from his membership of Loksabha and therefore it amounts to dual membership of the two Houses of Parliament and this is constitutionally impermissible.