Case: RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. SHARAD YADAV

the present case, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha has passed the order on 04.12.2019 on the claim of the appellant praying for disqualification as noticed above. The foundation of order of the Chairman are the facts and events, which took place after 26.07.2017. The petition having been filed by the appellant on 02.09.2017, petition has to be treated to be founded on facts and events, which took place on or before 02.09.2017. 13. Now, reverting to the C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018, we need to note as to what was the additional evidence, which was sought to be brought on record of the writ petition. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the application contains the details of Annexure 1 and Annexure 2, which is sought to be brought on record, which is as follows: - 4. That it is respectfully submitted that during the pendency of the above matter, the petitioner has formed/launched a new political party called the Loktantrik Janata Dal on 18.05.2018 at the Talkatora Stadium. Photographs, video clippings, posters and banners are proof of this formation and his active role therein. Photocopies of the pictures of the petitioner are annexed hereto as Annexure 1 collectively. Video recording of the speeches by the petitioner in the said event as also some more photographs have been extracted in a CD which is annexed hereto as Annexure-2. 5. That the annexures are the true copies of their respective originals. 14. Paragraph 4 and the Annexures 1 and 2 referred therein clearly indicate that what was sought to be taken on record was an event which took place on 18.05.2018 in which event a new political party called the Loktantrik Janata Dal was formed/launched. The application which was filed by the appellant seeking disqualification of the respondent was filed on 02.09.2017 in which application, the foundation of disqualification of respondent was already laid down. The order passed by the Chairman is based on a petition dated 02.09.2017 as well as the material and evidence, which was brought on record before the Chairman. Additional evidence, which is sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the basis for seeking disqualification of the respondent, hence, we do not find any error in the order of the High Court rejecting the C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018. While upholding the order of the High court rejecting the C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018, we, however, make few observations. 15. An event or a conduct of a person even though subsequent to passing of an order of Speaker or Chairman ordinarily may not be relevant for determining the validity of the order of the Speaker or Chairman but in a case where subsequent event or conduct of member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining to the time when member has incurred disqualification, that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. Justice Hidayatullah, (as he then was) speaking for this Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1625 has made a very pertinent observation with regard to acceptance of evidence. It observed that if the Court requires an evidence that can always be received. In paragraph 19, following was laid down: - (19) ………………………All procedure is always open to a Court which is not expressly prohibited and no rule of this Court has laid down that evidence shall not be received, if the Court requires it……………………………. 16. The observations made by the High Court in paragraph 4, i.e., any event subsequent to the passing of the said order cannot be a consideration for this Court to test the legality of the said order may be generally correct but there can be exception if the above statement is treated as statement of law. 17. In a writ petition under Article 226 subsequent events can be taken note of for varied purposes. We are reminded of the weighty observation of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 , where following was observed: - 4. ………………………………………………. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice — subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed……………………………………. 18. The observations made in paragraph 4 as quoted above need not to be read as laying down a law that in any case subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of the order impugned or for moulding the relief in a writ petition under Article 226.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. The decision taken by the Speaker, thus, has to be on the basis of conduct or actions taken by member, which may amount to voluntarily giving up his membership. The facts and sequence of the events on the basis of which Honble Chairman came to the conclusion that a person has incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule are all facts, which had occurred prior to adjudication by the Honble Chairman. In the facts of the present case, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha has passed the order on 04.12.2019 on the claim of the appellant praying for disqualification as noticed above. The foundation of order of the Chairman are the facts and events, which took place after 26.07.2017. The petition having been filed by the appellant on 02.09.2017, petition has to be treated to be founded on facts and events, which took place on or before 02.09.201713. Now, reverting to the C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018, we need to note as to what was the additional evidence, which was sought to be brought on record of the writ petition.Paragraph 4 and 5 of the application contains the details of Annexure 1 and Annexure 2, which is sought to be brought on record, which is as follows: -4. That it is respectfully submitted that during the pendency of the above matter, the petitioner has formed/launched a new political party called the Loktantrik Janata Dal on 18.05.2018 at the Talkatora Stadium. Photographs, video clippings, posters and banners are proof of this formation and his active role therein. Photocopies of the pictures of the petitioner are annexed hereto as Annexure 1 collectively. Video recording of the speeches by the petitioner in the said event as also some more photographs have been extracted in a CD which is annexed hereto as Annexure-25. That the annexures are the true copies of their respective originals14. Paragraph 4 and the Annexures 1 and 2 referred therein clearly indicate that what was sought to be taken on record was an event which took place on 18.05.2018 in which event a new political party called the Loktantrik Janata Dal was formed/launched. The application which was filed by the appellant seeking disqualification of the respondent was filed on 02.09.2017 in which application, the foundation of disqualification of respondent was already laid down. The order passed by the Chairman is based on a petition dated 02.09.2017 as well as the material and evidence, which was brought on record before the Chairman. Additional evidence, which is sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the basis for seeking disqualification of the respondent, hence, we do not find any error in the order of the High Court rejecting the C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018. While upholding the order of the High court rejecting the C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018, we, however, make few observations15. An event or a conduct of a person even though subsequent to passing of an order of Speaker or Chairman ordinarily may not be relevant for determining the validity of the order of the Speaker or Chairman but in a case where subsequent event or conduct of member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining to the time when member has incurred disqualification, that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 22616. The observations made by the High Court in paragraph 4, i.e., any event subsequent to the passing of the said order cannot be a consideration for this Court to test the legality of the said order may be generally correct but there can be exception if the above statement is treated as statement of law17. In a writ petition under Article 226 subsequent events can be taken note of for varied purposes. We are reminded of the weighty observation of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 ,  where following was observed: -4. ………………………………………………. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice — subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed……………………………………18. The observations made in paragraph 4 as quoted above need not to be read as laying down a law that in any case subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of the order impugned or for moulding the relief in a writ petition under Article 226.