PANAJI : The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Monday dismissed the petition of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party against two former Congress MLAs Subhash Shirodkar and Dayanand Sopte, directing the petitioners to pay Rs 1 lakh.
Dismissing the plea against Shirodkar and Sopte, who had quit as the Congress MLAs and joined the BJP some time back, the division bench of the High Court comprising Justice R M Borde and Justice P K Chavan observed, “In the instant case, applying the political question doctrine, this court exercising the writ jurisdiction should be slow in entertaining the petitions having the political overtones. In the instant case before us, in view of the facts presented before us, we do not deem it appropriate to enter into the political questions presented for determination in the petition. The petition is, according to us, in a way abuse of the process of the court. We, therefore, while dismissing the petition, direct the petitioners to pay costs which we quantify at Rs 1 lakh.”
The High Court also said that “we must place on record our displeasure for filing petitions by political parties with a view to achieve their political objectives and usurping the precious time of the court which, otherwise, can be utilised for disposal of the matters brought before the court by needy and poor.”
The petitioners had contended that the resignations by the former MLAs should be equated to the defection of the members under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
Besides, a request had been made to recommend to the Election Commission of India and the Law Commission of India the incorporation of necessary amendment in the constitutional provisions.
The High Court said the Election Commission and the Law Commission are recommendatory bodies and it is for the Parliament to bring about the necessary amendments to the Constitution. It is exclusively within the domain of the lawmakers and the courts have little role to play in the process of lawmaking. That apart, it is difficult to accept the argument of the petitioners of equating the act of tendering resignation and linking the same with the concept of defection which is incorporated in the constitutional provision, more specifically the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The High Court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioners as regards making recommendations to the law panel and the EC do not deserve any consideration.
“It is surprising to note as to how the petitioners can claim knowledge in respect of non-voluntary and non-genuineness of the resignation tendered by the former MLAs. The fact as regards voluntary nature and genuineness of the resignation is within the personal knowledge of the concerned former MLAs who have never disputed or raised any grievance as regards the decision of the Speaker of acceptance of their resignation, till this date,” the High Court said.
The HC also observed that there is nothing in the Constitution which takes away the right of an elected member to resign from his seat. Denial of such a right to an elected member would be destructive of principles of democracy. A legislator is the servant, but not the slave of the people. It is true that frequent resignations and frequent by-elections are a drain on the finances of the state and may prove irksome. But that is no reason to compel an elected member who has no desire to continue his membership, to continue as such. A person, after getting elected may, for variety of reasons, desire not to continue as a member. His reasons may be good or bad, but that is his decision and his right.