The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a Constitutional Court cannot set a timeframe for the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly to decide on the resignations submitted by its members.
This decision was made by a single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma after a disagreement between Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua on whether the Court can impose such a timeframe.
Justice Sharma clarified that the Speaker, when addressing resignation matters, acts as an officer of the State legislature. “In this capacity, the Speaker is coequal to the constitutional court as a constitutional authority. In such situations, constitutional courts respect the domain of other constitutional authorities regarding the roles specifically assigned to them under the constitution, a position accepted by both Hon’ble Judges in their separate judgments,” the Court stated.
The judgment was passed in response to independent lawmakers Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur, who had sought a court directive for the Speaker to immediately accept their resignations submitted on March 22.
On May 8, the division bench of Chief Justice Rao and Justice Dua ruled that a court cannot direct the Speaker to accept an MLA’s resignation. However, Justice Rao had stated that the Speaker could be directed to decide on the genuineness of the resignations within two months. Since Chief Justice Rao did not agree with setting a timeframe, the matter was referred to Justice Sharma.
Although the resignations were accepted and the MLAs joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the legal question remained for Justice Sharma to address. He examined whether the High Court, under Article 226, can set a timeframe for the Speaker’s decision.
Justice Sharma held that since the Division Bench had agreed it was the Speaker’s role to determine the genuineness of the resignations, there was no need for Justice Dua to set a timeframe. He explained that the Speaker is empowered to investigate if a resignation tendered by an MLA is not voluntary or genuine.
The court noted that while the law does not specify a timeframe for the Speaker to decide on resignations, the rules suggest that if a member personally submits their resignation to the Speaker and confirms its voluntary and genuine nature, the Speaker “may” accept it immediately, provided there is no contrary information.
In this case, the court observed that the independent MLAs were accompanied by BJP leaders when submitting their resignations. Had the independent MLAs not been accompanied by BJP MLAs, they could have rightfully argued that the Speaker should have accepted their resignations immediately.
