SC rejects petitions to revisit ruling on anti-defection law

SC refused to revisit its verdict that said an elected or nominated member is bound by its whip even after expulsion.

Published: 03rd August 2016 01:26 PM  |   Last Updated: 04th August 2016 04:06 AM   |  A+A-

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to revisit its 1996 ruling on the anti-defection law that a nominated or elected Member of Parliament of a political party is bound by its whip even after his or her expulsion.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi disposed of pleas filed by Uttar Pradesh politician Amar Singh, actor-turned-politician Jaya Prada and Pyarimohan Mohapatra, who was expelled from the BJD in 2012, terming them “infructuous”.

“The petitioner MPs have already completed their tenure. It would be more appropriate to not answer the question,” the bench, also comprising Justices P C Pant and Arun Mishra, said .

After their expulsion from the Samajwadi Party in 2010, Amar, and Jaya had moved the court fearing disqualification from the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha respectively and raised the question whether ousted lawmakers were bound by the whip of the party on whose ticket they got elected in the light of the 1996 verdict.

The ruling may have direct impact on lawmakers  expelled by parties such as AIADMK MP Sasikala Pushpa as she can be tried under the anti-defection law if she defies a party whip.

Amar and Jaya had sought an interim stay on any possible action against them if they decided to vote in favour of the Women’s Reservation Bill to which the SP is fiercely opposed to. They had argued that the interpretation of the anti-defection law, as per 1996 ruling in the G Vishwanathan case, didn’t apply to them as they had neither resigned from the party nor floated one on their own. The case was referred to a larger bench after then Attorney General G E Vahanvati agreed that the court judgment in the Vishwanathan case was not clear on certain aspects.

As per the 1996 interpretation of the anti-defection law, a member elected or nominated by a political party continues to be under its control even after his or her expulsion. The court had interpreted the 10th schedule of the Constitution that doesn’t recognise unattached MPs/MLAs impinged upon expelled members’ fundamental rights, including those to equality, free speech and life under articles 14, 19 and 21 respectively.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp