Sachin Pilot case: Rajasthan High Court sets 13 questions of law on the petition
1. The Rajasthan High Court on Friday relieved the Sachin Pilot-led group of rebel MLAs of the Congress and ordered the status quo on the disqualification notice sent by the speaker to this MLA group. Relief given to Sachin Pilot camp, Rajasthan High Court gave the order to maintain status quo at the notice of the speaker, as well as a bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mohanty and Justice Prakash Gupta in the Rajasthan High Court set 13 questions of law on the petition of Sachin Pilot and 18 MLAs Which they will be hearing.
3. Those questions are as follows
(i) The Supreme Court verdict of Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillahu and others 1992 SCC Supp (2) 651 was only based on ‘crossing over’ or defection or the question of internal disagreement of the party was also considered.
(ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, Article 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is infringing, especially against the basic structure of the Constitution of India and Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India ) Of the freedom of expression guaranteed by (a), and is thus zero?
(iii) Can the expression of strong disagreement or disenchantment against the party leadership be conducted falling within the purview of para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution?
(iv) Whether the facts on which the Speaker has issued the notice are against the constitutional facts, are those provisions unconstitutional?
(v) Whether the manner of exercise of the Speaker’s jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against any MLA under para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should be separated from the Speaker’s jurisdiction?
(vi) Can the discipline be enforced within the House for the work required of the MLAs through party ‘whip’?
(vii) Is the Speaker not in a position to pass judgment on the said question of constitutionalism raised by the petitioners in the instant petition?
(viii) Is the notice issued by the Speaker a pre-violation of the essence of democracy and its purpose is to suppress the voice of disagreement against the persons in power?
(ix) Whether through notice, an attempt has been made to suppress the voice of the petitioners seeking a change of leadership within the democratically expressed party and the petitioners are being threatened that they are acting on such leadership Abandon the right to express your opposition?
(x) Whether criticizing the functioning of the state unit of the Chief Minister / Party outside the House by a legislator is also within the scope of the meaning of voluntarily ‘relinquishing’ his membership from the political party in para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule.
(xi) If the answer to question number x is affirmative, does not para 2 (1) (a) violate the basic structure of the constitution which includes Article 19 (1) (a), violation of freedom of expression?
(xii) Is the Assembly Speaker’s action to issue notice on 14 July 2020 not hasty, malicious, in violation of natural justice, abuse of power, and that too has already been concluded in it?
(xiii) Can the Supreme Court’s decision in Kihoto Holohan v. Zachillahu and others 1992 SCC Supp (2) 651 be deemed to have barred the High Court from examining these questions?
