CHANDIGARH, India: Dissidents and the ruling group of the Barnala government felt jubilant by in term order passed by the Punjab and Haryana high court on writ petition filed by the Dissident Akali MLA from Killa Raipur, Mr. Arjun Singh Litt, challenging the notice served on him by the Speaker, Mr. Suit Singh Minhas, for disqualifying him from the membership of the Assembly. The Dissidents were happy because the high court admitted his petition filed by him and stayed the Speaker from implementing any order Jeopardizing the rights of the petitioner as a member of the Assembly. Mr. Littand the other dissidents held a press conference immediately after the court rose for the day. The ruling group was jubilant because the vacation judge Mr. Justice MN. Joshi and Mr. Justice BB. Sehgal allowed the Speaker to complete the proceedings and did not grant the blanket stay against the notice. In a petition Mr. Litt stated that he and the other twenty six MLAs were shocked at the police action in the Golden Temple on April 30th, therefore, they decided to form a separate political party. They also requested the Speaker, Mr. Ravi Inder to allocate separate seats in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. While representing the petitioner, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, a former Law Minister and Mr. H.S. Matewal took the stand that the notice was violate of the basic structure of the Constitution which granted freedom of expression under article 19 of the Constitution. He asserted that if the act curved the honest reprisal of the ‘opinion as was in the present case, the act would not be commended, Chief Minister, Mr. Surjit Singh Barnala was trying to punish other members also for an honest expression of opinion over a matter for which he himself was apologetic and polished shoes in the gurdwaras, The former Law Minister asserted that in the present case there was a major split in the party. It was because of this reason that the split had taken place. The split group was fully recognized by the former speaker on May 8th and the new Speaker has no jurisdiction to review the decision of his predecessor in view of the Para 6 of the tenth schedule. The vacation bench directed the petitioner that the petition should be placed before the full bench of five judges on July 7th for argument.
Article extracted from this publication >> June 27, 1986
