Table Of ContentREGD. NO. D.L.--33004/95
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 521 NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1996/MAGHA 4, 1917
230GI/96 (1)
2 Tttfi GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [pARr It—SEC. 3fii)]
3
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 22nd January, 1^96
S.O. 65(Ej.—The following lX-cision dated 3 January, 1996,
ot the Speaker, Lot Sabha, tisvn under the Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution of India is hereby notified :—
"BEFORE HONOURABLE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA
Shri Ajit Liiigh Petitioner
1. Shri Ram I-uUnm Siiitfh Yadav
2. Shri Ram Shurun Yadav
3. Shri Abhay Fratap Sinjih
4. Shri Roshan Lai
5. Shii Gtilam Mohammad Khan
6. Shri Anadi Char;m Da*
7. Shri Giiviml Or,ni1r.i Munda
Respondents
Petition under Para 2Q(b) or in the alternative under para
No. 2<i)(a) at .[he TeiiTh Schedule of the Conn'tuiion of India
for a decision that tli? afi.vrt.Ldid Respondents are dihqualihd for
being Members of the House of People (Lok S-ibhii) on the
pround that .they hud violated ithe whip duly served ou theut
directing them to vote in favour of the No Confidence Motion
on 28;h July, 1993 or in the alternative cm the Rround that
they voluntarily gave lip the membership of the Janata Dal
(A) of which they were the Members,
1. On 1st June, 1993 it was decided in ihe Janata Dal
<^e, that Janata Dnl (A) consisting of 20 Members with Shri
A jit Singh as its Leader came into existence. Subsequently on
28th July 1995 Cat 16.15 Hrs.l Shri Ram LaklMn Sinsh
Yadav handed over u. letter of the same date signed by
him and 6 other Members Belonging to Janata Dal (A) viz.
Sarvashri Roshan Lai, Abhay Pratap Sin^h. Govinda Chandra
Munda, Ram Sharon Yadav, Anadi Charan Das and Gulami
Mohammad Khan requesting for separate group in Lok
Sabha. :
2. On that day i.e. 28-7-1993, at the voting on a motion ot
No Confidence in the Council cf Ministers (held at 20,20
Hrs.), Shri Ram: Lakhnn Singh Yadav and the s,jid six other
members voted against the motion. On 3rd August 1993,
a ktter dated 2nd August 199") wa3 received from the
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs informing ihat Sliri Raml
I-alcMan Si.ijji Yddav and six other; v.ho had niade a request
to be scatej separately in Lok Sabha had been admitted! to
Congress (1) and that they be allotted seats in Conjress (J)
Klock of seats Comments in this lespect were obtained
from Ajit Singh. After considering the comments of Shri
Ajit Singh and further submissions by Shri Ram Litthan Sinph
Yadav and others, it was decided to seat the said 7 mem-
bers separately outside the Janata Dal (A) BUiclr of seats
In Lok Satha for the purpose ol functioning in tf>e House.
1. It may b pertinent to mention that there were allega-
c
tions by Shri Ajit SinRh and some other Members that
Shri Govinda Chandra Munda, one of the signatoiles to the
nbove letter dated 2RUi July 11J4)3, was pressurised by a
Minister and some Members to correct his vo'e to 'No'
In fnvour of Ihef Government at the t'me of votinjj on the
No Confidence Motion held on 2Kth July 1993. Comments
in this respect were obtained from- the Ministtr and the
Members concerned who bad denied the respeeitvc allegations
made neainst thern in the matter Shri Mund.i in his letter
dated 291h July 1993 intimated that he had voted apainst <he
mo-ion of his free will. Besides, at Hie time of recording
a statement in the matter, when Shri Mimdu wart asked
specificallv if any Mcmlier or Members or Minister or Minist-
ers had broupht anv l:ind of pvessuro on him in the ma'ter
of vote castf by him, he emphatically denied the same.
4. On 12 Aupust 1993. Shri Rajnath Sonker Sliai:rl, M.P.,
<hr tben Chief Whin of Janata Dal (A) T ecislature Partv in
Lot Sabha Intimated in vvriitng that Shri Ram Lalhan Slncji
Vadav and five other Members (excludlns Shri (j, C. Munda)
4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART H-SEC. 3(ii)l
had voteJ country to the party directive without prior permis- i;:ider the Tenth Schedule. Shri Kapil Sibal, Counsel for the
sion, at Ihe time of voting on the No Confidence Motion held lespondents in his oral arguments (on 24th August, 1994)
on 28th July I4J9J and that the paily had decided not to con- and writleii submissions (received on 16th September, 1994),
done the violation of the party directive by the suid members. on the issue of intervention by a third party, submitted that
once the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule in respect
5. Ofl ?6 August 19R1, Shji A jit Einjih Slid a cojnpci-ilc
i.t J. \.cihh:ii hi: di^iUdjikitioii ci; s;t in mcikij), there i-
ret;'me under tl.o T;n.li iiclusirjie to the Constitution and
31.) o:',.:'^'ij fcr .my ''rr.STvertinn by a third party.
the rules mads th-jreunder against th= said seven members
viz, Siirvas.hr! Ram I/dthnn binjjft Yadiv, Ram Sharan Yadav,
13. As lcgaid-j the main iiu^'3i\ ths tuic, Shri Sibal had
Abli;iy IVutap Siri£h, Rnkii La;, Guluci Mohammad Khan, J
submitted timt tince a valid split had taken place in the
Anadi Charon Das :uiri CiovinJii Chandra Munda.
JurwUi Dol (A) Leaiilaiuri Party in ihc Lok Sabha and the
6 Tit pEiltii-nti- coiitiiiiJed dial 6 out of the 7 Respondents 7 Respondents conpru'iig the fjaiuii which Jiioae pursuant
VL£. Savvuehii Rum Lakban Singh Yr/Jjtv, Ram Sharan Yadav, thereto, con^tifulv; moit \hau l/3iJ of the loiul slicngth of
Abliay Prutap Singh, R diaa i.al, Guiana Mohammad Kha" tie Jaivnta Dal (A) in I.ok Sabha, they ar* t^ot subjc.t lo
:iud Anadi Chi'van Das, nt the iinie of voting on the motion Hie riffiuii of para 2 of the Tenth Schedule, beinc within the
of No Confidence held on 28th July, 1993 vo'.ed contrary exception set out in para 3 of the said Schedule.
to the purty directive anJ hence had become subject to
uisqualincaltun uinkr paia 2il) It) ai. tlit Tenth Schedule. 14. On 29th November, 1995, ilie Petitioni (Shti Ajit
sidtjIiV ihe Re?pondent (Shri Ram Lakhan Smun YLIJ.-.V and
7. In liis alTiinaiii'L- pica, tl.e petitioner submitted thut sine:; i.tf.Ciis) and Shii Upi'ndra I-Tnth Vcruia, MP \:\zro called to
the Ittter wntt:n by tlie Ke^ponden'.s on 28th July 1933
discus, the matters involved in the case. Daring the meeting,
^cqueJmg for a sip^rwtL- group amounlcd to giving up the
Membership of tin; original political party, the seven respon- ii't petitioner suDmittLtl .•. written sitatemeiit striting tlnit he
ILM.I.-, (iuv.ludiiiy Shri G. C. Murtdu) Inul become lialh to b^ J;'d luir vvish to punui the cise. Slid Upendra Ntiih Vcnua
i.!itl;n'eJ disqualified i.iuJer para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth ^)so nkJ u wriHe-n fjateinent staling thai he does not wish
Schedule.
lo pies-j hi-i fil ;i|jpli-\iliori for substitution of hi^, name as
H. Copies of the petition were 'forwarded 10 the respond- petitioner i\) this case ami (ii) composite petition for dis-
ents fur their toniriieiits, us required und.-r the Anti Defection qualification uguinst Shri Ajit Sinj/h and 9 other members.
Ralij. The main stand of the respondents in their written Tin: said v.iitten statements by Shri Ajit Sinjjh und Shri
r.tatv-menf'; in Ibis respect war, thut dree they had already LTpet.Ji^i Narh Vsrma were counterbigiied by me.
decided to split from Janata Dal (A> and a valid split had
taken place and the faction, which arose pursuant tliereto, 15. The main issue for ^OJlsiJeration in the ense in respect
was more than 1 [3rd ot the total members of the Janata Dal of compusile petition by Shti Ajit Siuyh a^uin^t Shri Ram
(A) in the Lok Sabha, there was no occasion for them to Lal.haii Singh Yadav and other Members is whtllHr :
v,\kn notice of the swhip issued to them by Jamil a Dal (A)
(i) Shri Rain Lakhan Singh Yadav and 5 other icspon-
nnd they were ncilhisr ufluired1 nor obligated to obey the
dents (excluding Shri O. C. Munda) have incurred
whip.
disqualification mider paia 2(1) (b) of the Tenth
9. After con.iderlnjr the comments of the 7 respondents, it Sthsdi'li*, for voting in the Jlousa contrary tj the
was decided to hold healings in the matter. The. parties to party directive (as prayed by the petitlor.ei in his
the case were allowed .to plead their case themselves as well main plea): or . .
M through their counsels. The first hearing in the case
was held on 17th December, 1993 which was attended by the (ii) All the 7 respondents by making a request for sepa-
petitioner, respondents and their Counsels. However, during rate group have incurred disqualification undt;r
the subsequent hearings held on 11th April, 6th June and
para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule for voluntarily
24th Aup.rst, 1094 neither the petitioner nor his Counsel
was present. 't giving up membership of their original political party
fas prayed by petitioner in his alternative plea).
10. Mention may b* made here of some subsequent deve-
lopments which took plate while the hearinRS in the case !6. The evidence that has come on record shows that the
were in progress. On 30th December, 1993. Shri AJit Singh respondents had split from the original party.
and 9 other Members of Janata Dal (A) informed that they
17. The petitioner had stated in writinc that he- is not
had decided to merge with Congress (1). After examining the
interested in pursuins ths petition. Hence, it Is held that
matter, sents were allotted to Shri Ajit Singh and others in
IIIL- membership of the respondents cannot be terminated.
Congress (I) block of seats in Lok Sabha and they were treat-
ed as Members of Congress (T). 18. In vkw of the uniiinaji that the respondents had split
f/nm the orifiinal party, it is not necessary to deddW if
Jl. In nnother development, Shri Upendra Nnth Verma,
Shri G. C. Munda had validly received the directions from
MP, belonging to Janata Dal (A) filed (i) an application to
the whip of the original parly anil if ho had violated the
substitute his name ns petitioner in the petition against Shri
whip. In view of this position, the membership of Shri O. C.
R.am Lukhan Singh Yadav and others in place of Shri AJit
Mund-i cannot be terminated.
Simjh; (ii) composite petition for disqualification against
Shri Ajit Sinj'h and 9 other members who had merged with 19. Shri L'pendva Nath Verma wanted to be implcaded "in
Congress (I). ,thc matter as the Petitioner.
12. Hence during the fourth and finul hearing held on 20. He did not ;prcar before the deciding authority, at
2-Hh August, 1994 (which was also not attended either by the time when the evidence was recorded of when the arau-
the Petitioner or by his Counsel) apart from the main issues, ments wcie heard. He has given in writing that he is not
another additional issue emerged for consideration viz. is it interested in getting himself impleaded as the Petitioner. On
permissible for a third party to intervene in the proceedings behalf of the respondents, ii was pleaded that lefially also.
before the Speaker in respect of a petition for disqualification Shri Verma could not be iniplcaded as petitioner.
5
21. In view of the application given by Shri Upendra Natli (iv) The replication ut Shti Upendra Nath V;rma is dis-
Verma snying that he is not interested in preying for getting posed of in terms of his second1 application which
himself impleaded as the Petitioner, it is not necessary to decide stales that he is not interested in getting himself
whether he can be impleaded as the petitioner, legally. impleaded as the petitioner ;
(vj fhe case is closed;
22. The matter of Shri Upendra Nath Verma's becomiiiB
the pctiiioncr does not survive after his giving in writinH (vi) Other necessary steps may be taken in teims (it the
iliol he is not interested in becoming the petitioner. law and the rules.
New Delhi.
Ueted. the 3rd January, 199.6
ORDER
Sd./-
23. Therefore, the petition is disposed of as foHowi:
(SHTVRAJ V. I'ATIL),
(i) The Petition is dismissed;
Speaker, Lok Sabha"
(ii) "I he Respondents are not subject to disqualification :
[No. 46/2(2)/93/Tl
<)iij Membership of Shri O. C. Munda is not terminated ;
S. N. MISHRA, Secv.-Genl
230 GI/96-2
Ptinted by the Manager, Govt, of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhl-l 10064
and Published by tho Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054j 1996
