The Rajasthan Assembly Speaker had moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a day after receiving a direction from the high court to defer action on the notices sent to dissident Congress MLAs.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Monday will resume hearing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Rajasthan Assembly Speaker CP Joshi against the high court order staying the disqualification proceedings against 19 Congress lawmakers led by Sachin Pilot.
The Rajasthan Assembly Speaker had moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a day after receiving a direction from the high court to defer action on the notices sent to dissident Congress MLAs.
The Speaker's office had issued notices to Pilot and the other MLAs on July 14 on the basis of a complaint from their party that they had skipped two meetings of the Congress Legislature Party, defying a whip.
Speaker Joshi had told reporters that he was filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the apex court to avoid a constitutional crisis.
The Supreme Court had, during the first hearing in the matter, refused to put a stay on the high court proceedings and scheduled the matter for Monday.
Meanwhile, the Rajasthan High Court's on Friday passed an order asking for status quo to be maintained on the rebel Congress lawmakers, gave temporary relief to the 18 MLAs of the Sachin Pilot camp. The court has barred Joshi from acting on the disqualification notices. The high court also agreed to Pilot’s request to make Centre a party to the case.
Joshi said only show-cause notices were issued to the MLAs and no decision had been taken. The notices gave the MLAs three days to submit their reply on why they should not be disqualified from the assembly.
But the dissident leaders moved the Rajasthan High Court on July 16, challenging the notices.
Congress has also questioned the high court ruling. Party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi pointed out that the apex court has clearly stated in the past that judicial review is not permissible at any stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker.
"If somebody is begging (for the Assembly to be convened) ... and still 4-5
days have passed and now it is going to be seven days if 31st is the date be here. Then, I think this is the worst kind of obstruction of democracy, which is happening under your nose," Singhvi noted.
Citing a 1992 SC judgement, Singhvi quoted a five-judge judge as saying: "Having regard to the constitutional scheme in the Tenth Schedule, judicial review should not cover any stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speakers/Chairman; and no quia timet (ie interim interventions) are permissible".
(With inputs from PTI)