The Supreme Court today commenced hearing to revisit its two-decade-old verdict on the anti- defection law by which a member elected or nominated by a political party continues to be under its control even after expulsion.
The issue had cropped up after Amar Singh and cine star Jaya Prada, who were members of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha respectively, had moved the Supreme Court on their expulsion from the Samajwadi Party on February 2, 2010, anticipating ouster from Parliament.
They had contended that they have landed in a piquant situation as expelled members and apprehended disqualification under the anti-defection law if they chose to defy party's whip on any issue in Parliament.
Making a submission before a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C Pant, counsel for the two former MPs, said the interpretation of the anti-defection law, as per a 1996 ruling of the apex court, does not apply to them as they did not form their own party.
The bench, after hearing part arguments today, fixed the matter for further hearing on February 12.
Giving details of submissions made before the bench, advocate P S Sudheer, said it was argued that the Anti- Defection Law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in G Vishwanathan case, does not apply to Amar Singh and Jaya Prada as they had not resigned from the party and neither had they floated their own.
He said the bench has also sought written submission on the question of law by February 10.
As per the interpretation of the anti-defection law by the Supreme Court in G Vishwanathan case in 1996, a member elected or nominated by a political party continues to be under its control even after his or her expulsion.
The apex court on November 15, 2010, had directed that no
action shall be taken against Amar Singh and Jaya Prada under anti-defection law in the event of their defying a party whip.
The two-judge bench had also referred to a larger constitution bench the question whether an expelled member could be disqualified under the law, if he defies party whip.
The two leaders had then sought interim stay on any possible action against them in case they decided to vote in favour of Women's Reservation Bill to which the SP was fiercely opposed to.
The apex court had decided to make the reference while considering that the judgement in the Vishwanathan case was not clear on certain aspects of the anti-defection law.
Earlier, The two leaders had argued that anti-defection law could be invoked only against those who either defect from the party or defy its whip while being in the party.
However, they had contended that in case like theirs,they did not defect from the party but were expelled, and as unattached members, they were not amenable to the party's whip.
The two sacked MPs had moved the apex court fearing they may be disqualified for not abiding by the party whip in Parliament in view of the apex court 1996 verdict.
They felt the apex court's interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution impinged upon fundamental rights of the expelled members, including their rights to equality, free speech and expression and life under articles 14, 19 and 21 respectively.
