SC refuses opinion if expelled lawmaker would still be under party whip

New Delhi, Aug 3 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to express an opinion on whether a lawmaker, after being expelled from a party, would attract disqualification under the anti-defection law for defying its whip during voting in the legislature.

"We are not answering the questions," said a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C. Pant as it refused to address seven questions referred to it by two judges bench way back on November 15, 2010.

Not answering the question, the bench said that the petitioners, Amar Singh and Jaya Prada, have already completed their Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha terms in the meantime. Another lawmaker Pyarimohan Mohapatra too had moved the court in 2012.

A two judge bench on November 15, 2010 referred seven questions to a larger three judge bench, including whether a lawmaker continues to be bound by the party whip vis-a-vis anti-defection law after being expelled.

The two-judge bench had referred the questions to a larger bench on November 15, 2010, following the plea by then expelled Samajwadi Party lawmakers Amar Singh and Jaya Prada who had contended that they were outside the ambit of anti-defection law as they were declared as an unattached member of the house following their expulsion.

Besides, Amar Singh and Jaya Prada, another lawmaker Pyarimohan Mohapatra too had moved the court in 2012.

The top court had on November 15, 2010, referred to a larger bench the key question whether a lawmaker after being expelled from the party could be disqualified under the anti-defection law if he defies the party whip during voting on a bill or motion in the legislature.

In the Vishwanathan case, the top court in 1996 had held that even if a lawmaker is expelled from the party, for the purposes of two houses of parliament and the state legislatures, he/she would be deemed to continue to belong to such party.

The questions framed by the two-judge bench had included the status of lawmaker in either house of parliament or the state legislature after being expelled by the party which had set him/her up as a candidate for election.

While referring to the larger bench to examine whether view taken by the apex court in 1996 was a correct one in the context of the parliamentary debate on the anti-defection law, the court had asked the larger bench to examine "will the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution apply to such Member".

The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for the provision for the disqualification of a lawmaker on the grounds of defection.