PANAJI
In a development that could have significant implications for Goa's long-pending political defection litigation, the Supreme Court's seven-judge bench is likely to hear Goa MLAs' disqualification case, which is now tagged with senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal's petition seeking a fresh interpretation of the anti-defection law's merger provision.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe agreed to examine Sibal's plea challenging the interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, which allows legislators to escape disqualification if their political party merges with another party. The court also issued notice to the Centre on the petition.
During the hearing, Sibal informed the Bench that a similar matter arising from Goa was already pending before the Supreme Court. Taking note of the submission, the Bench ordered that his petition be tagged with the Goa case, bringing the two matters together for consideration.
The Goa matter pertains to the disqualification proceedings involving eight Congress MLAs who joined the BJP in September 2022 by claiming protection under the merger provision of the anti-defection law. Their move was upheld by the then Speaker of Goa Legislative Assembly, following which Congress challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court at Goa and subsequently the Supreme Court.
Petitioner Girish Chodankar said that the SC has tagged his Goa MLA disqualification matter with Sibal’s plea. “Larger constitutional bench comprising of seven judges will be constituted to hear the matter. Now SC will have to give judgement on the question of law,” he said.
Sibal, appearing in his personal capacity, has argued that the present interpretation of the merger clause has enabled legislators to circumvent the anti-defection law, leading to frequent political realignments. He contended before the court that the issue has "huge repercussions on our polity" as it allows the composition of legislatures to change through defections protected under the merger exception.
The Bench observed that there are several issues with the functioning of the Tenth Schedule but remarked that Parliament, which enacted the law, would ultimately have to address them. Nevertheless, it agreed to examine the legal interpretation sought in the petition and sought the Centre's response.
