Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding RJD leader Ram Bali Singh's petition, which challenges his expulsion from the Bihar Legislative Council. This expulsion occurred following his statements opposing state policies during the time his party was in power.

A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the order. The case is scheduled for further consideration on October 25.

To recap, Singh was disqualified following an order issued by the Chairman of the Bihar Legislative Council. The complaint against him was that he made public statements opposing the state government's policies, which had been approved by the Legislature, while his party was part of the government.

In response to the expulsion, Singh initially challenged the decision in the Patna High Court, arguing that the Chairman's order was marred by procedural irregularities. He claimed that the order violated Rules 6(6) and 7 of the Bihar Legislative Council (Disqualification on the Ground of Defection) Rules, 1994 ("Bihar Rules").

Singh relied on Rule 6 of the Bihar Rules, arguing that every complaint or petition against a member of the Bihar Legislative Council must be signed by the complainant and verified according to the procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for verifying pleadings (Order 6, Rule 15 CPC). He further contended that Rule 7 permits the Chairman to dismiss a petition if it fails to meet the requirements of Rule 6.

Singh argued that the complaint did not meet the requirements under Order 6, Rule 15 CPC, as it was not accompanied by an affidavit. He contended that this issue was raised as a preliminary objection to the Chairman, but the Chairman dismissed it.

The High Court upheld the Chairman's order disqualifying Singh, noting that the requirement under Rule 6 was directory rather than mandatory. The court referenced the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors., where the Supreme Court had ruled that subordinate legislation like the Bihar Rules cannot limit the substantive provisions of the Tenth Schedule, which governs anti-defection law.

The Tenth Schedule does not specify that the Chairman or Speaker of the House lacks jurisdiction to issue an order regarding the disqualification of a member until a petition is submitted in accordance with the CPC.

The High Court also determined that Singh's actions indicated a voluntary abandonment of his political party, which led to his disqualification under the Bihar Rules. Dissatisfied with this decision, Singh subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: RAM BALI SINGH v. THE BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, PATNA, SLP(C) No. 016760/ 2024