Are High Courts not obliged to follow binding 5 judge SC judgement, regarding Speaker being non interfering while adjudicating a show cause notice on disqualification? : Dr Abhishek Singhvi

AICC Press briefing by Dr AM Singhvi, RS MP & Spokesperson AICC via video conferencing :

  • While there’s a complete call for Covid measures around the country, we have a Central govt & state opposition in Rajasthan which has converted it into a 24×7 activity to ensure downfall of a duly elected govt. This shows their priorities
  • Is it conceivable that any Governor will refuse or delay the meeting of an assembly which may have a numbers test?
  • The Governor spent 2 days getting advisors. Were these advisors unaware of direct Supreme Court judgement which said the Governor has no jurisdiction once the Cabinet advises him, he is bound by the it
  • Are High Courts not obliged to follow binding 5 judge SC judgement, regarding Speaker being non interfering while adjudicating a show cause notice on disqualification? Has HC order of 24th July followed that SC rule?
  • Sarkaria Commission 4.16.11 says- Governor should not risk determining issue of majority support, on his own, outside the Assembly. The prudent course for him would be to cause the rival claims to be tested on the floor of the House.”
  • Suppose the Rajasthan HC holds in favour of the state Govt of Rajasthan or speaker or Mr. Sachin Pilot, will it affect the Governor’s power to call the assembly under 174?
  • Reference to minimum 21 days notice reflects the motivated nature of Governor’s queries. Innumerable sessions have been called at a week’s or even five days notice.
  • 5 judges of SC in Kihoto,1992: “Having regard to constitutional scheme in 10th Schedule, judicial review shouldn’t cover any stage prior to making of a decision by Speakers/Chairman; & no quia timet (i.e. interim interventions) are permissible

Leave a Reply