Supreme Court stays filling of Lok Sabha vacancies

     New Delhi: The Supreme Court today asked the Election Commission (EC) not to start without its permission the process for filling the vacancies that had been created by the expulsion of 10 Lok Sabha members in the wake of the 'cash-for- queries' scam. A bench of Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice C K Thakker and Justice R V Raveendran issued the order after hearing a petition filed by the expelled Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP) Member of Parliament (MP) Raja Ram Pal who challenged his expulsion. The court, however, asked the EC to go ahead with the election for filling the single Rajya Sabha seat that was vacant since the expulsion of Chhatrapal Singh Lodha, but made it clear that it shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. However, it has given a nod to the expelled MPs' plea to let them continue in the official accommodation. The court said all the matters shall go to a constitution bench, and only then it shall be decided whether Parliament has the power to expel the tainted members or not. EC counsel S Murlidhar following this told the court that the he had no plans to hold elections for the 10 vacant Lok Sabha seats. However, the EC has plans to initiate proceedings for filling up the Rajya Sabha seat soon, he said. The Lok Sabha had expelled its 10 members who were caught on camera accepting money for raising questions in the Parliament.

    The 10 expelled members were Annasahed M K Patil, Y G Mahajan, Suresh Chandel, Pradeep Gandhi and Chandra Pratap Singh (all Bharatiya Janata Party), Narendra Kumar Kushwaha, Lal Chandra Kol and Rajaram Pal (all Bahujan Samaj Party), Manoj Kumar (Rashtriya Janata Dal) and Ramsevak Singh (Congress). The Supreme Court had transferred to itself nine writ petitions pending in the High Court filed by 10 MPs challenging the cessation of their membership for their alleged involvement in the cash-for-query scam. The three-judge bench allowed the transfer petition filed by the Centre seeking transfer to the apex court for hearing alongwith the writ petition filed by BSP Lok Sabha Member Raja Ram Pal. Raja Ram Pal's petition is already pending in the Supreme Court and has been referred to the Constitution Bench of the apex court.

SC to hear petitions of BSP MLAs on Mar 6 (Go To Top)

      New Delhi: The Supreme Court today fixed March 6 as the hearing date for the petitions filed by the MLAs of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) breakaway group challenging the Allahabad High Court decision of setting aside the merger of 40 BSP MLAs with the Samajwadi Party (SP). The bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal heard the matter presented by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who urged the court to take the matter as early as possible. The four petitions were filed by around 38 MLAs of BSP breakaway group challenging the Allahabad High Court judgement. BSP supremo Mayawati yesterday met Governor T V Rajeshwar and urged the dismissal of Mulayam Singh Yadav Government in the wake of the Allahabad High Court verdict. BSP also threatened to approach the court if the State Governor T V Rajeswar does not dismiss the Mulayam Government. "If the Governor failed to take any concrete steps in this connection in the next four to five days, BSP would definitely knock on the doors of the judiciary against Vidhan Sabha Speaker Mata Prasad Pandey`s wrong interpretation of the High Court judgement to bail out the Mulayam Singh Government in the BSP rebel MLAs case," Mayawati added.

     Meanwhile, another BSP rebel MLA Ram Kishan also resigned from the post of Chairman of Uttar Pradesh Development System Corporation holding ministerial rank. Earlier, three ministers (Jaiveer Singh, Surendra Vikram Singh and Dharm Pal, all Ministers of State) who were once affiliated with the BSP, had resigned from the Mulayam Singh Government on Wednesday. On February 28, the Congress party and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had demanded the immediate resignation of Mulayam Singh Government. According to the BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad the Court's decision has cast serious doubts on the credibility and majority of Mulayam Singh's Government in the State Assembly and it proves that the SP Government in UP was conceived immorally, that has brought havoc in form of corruption and lawlessness. However, Mulayam Singh had moved a confidence motion in the Legislative Assembly and subsequently won it just after the High Courts ruling. Commenting on the decision, the Congress spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan said: The Congress terms the trust vote as a fraud. There is no provision for a trust votes in the law unless, it has been asked for by the Governor. In this case the Governor had not asked the UP government to seek the vote of confidence. A senior SP leader, Amar Singh had said here that the trust vote was not aimed at negating the High Court's verdict.

SC orders framing of charges against Jaya (Go To Top)

      New Delhi: With reference to the non-filing of Income Tax (IT) returns case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court today directed a Tamil Nadu court to consider the framing of charges within two months. A bench headed by Justice B N Aggarwal has directed the trial court that it will frame charges only after hearing a petition filed by Jayalalithaa and others involved and are seeking discharge in the case. As per the court's orders the two months period for trial court will commence from the date it receives the order of the apex court.

    The court said that the date for commencement of trial on day-to-day basis will start only after the trial court confirms that it is an apt case for framing of charges, until its proceedings are stayed by any court. The case was registered against Jayalaithaa and her acquaintance Sasikala Natrajan for non-filing of IT returns for the year 1993- 94. The prosecution has alleged them for adopting delaying tactics by not appearing in the court. Last year in July, the IT department moved the Supreme Court, accusing Jayalalithaa and Sasikala of adopting tactics to delay proceedings in tax violation cases. Taking cognisance of the petition of the department, a Bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice A.K. Mathur issued notices to both, seeking their replies. The cases pertained to non-filing of tax returns for assessment year 1993-94 and the department alleged that since 2001, 42 adjournments were sought by them from the trial court in Chennai, holding proceedings in tax related criminal offence. The department moved the apex court after the Madras High Court had declined to entertain its petition on the issue. The apex court, while issuing notices said if the department was not satisfied with the trial proceedings, it could seek its transfer outside the state. Senior special public prosecutor for income tax cases K Ramasamy had earlier said that the charge against Jayalalithaa and Sasikala was that they `willfully failed' to file returns for the assessment year 1993-94, whereas Sasi Enterprises in which the two are partners has been charged with failure to file returns for 1991-92 and 1992-93.

Back to Headlines                  Go To Top