February 14, 2001 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a public interest petition that questioned the constitutional validity of an MLA’s resignation and its acceptance by the Speaker. The Division Bench of Justice W.A. Shishak and Justice R.S. Garg held that a member of the Legislative Assembly has an absolute right to resign voluntarily, and such a right cannot be curtailed by interpreting constitutional provisions differently from their plain meaning.
The petitioner, a practising advocate, had filed the case in public interest, arguing that the resignation of an elected representative burdens the public exchequer by causing unnecessary by-elections. He further contended that Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India had been wrongly interpreted and that the word “or” between clauses (a) and (b) should be read as “and.” According to him, a member could resign only if he became disqualified under Article 191.
Justice R.S. Garg, delivering the judgment, rejected this interpretation and observed that the Constitution clearly provides two independent grounds under Article 190(3): first, when a member suffers from a disqualification, and second, when he resigns voluntarily. The Court emphasized that reading “or” as “and” would produce absurd results, preventing even an ailing or incapacitated MLA from stepping down.
The Bench noted that the Speaker of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly had duly followed the constitutional procedure by conducting an inquiry and recording satisfaction that the resignation was voluntary and genuine. Referring to Articles 56, 101, and 156 of the Constitution, the Court highlighted that the right to resign is recognized across various constitutional offices, including that of the President, Governor, and Members of Parliament.
The petitioner’s moral argument that an elected representative owes a duty to serve the full term as promised to voters was also dismissed. The Court clarified that moral or political considerations cannot override the Constitution. “In a court of law, the principles of politics have no role to play,” Justice Garg wrote, adding that the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to relinquish office voluntarily.
The Court found no substance in the claim that the Speaker’s acceptance of the resignation was unconstitutional or that a reason must be stated in the resignation letter. It concluded that the resignation was validly accepted after due inquiry and that the seat had rightly fallen vacant. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Reference : Writ Petition No. 106/2001 , B.N. Bajpai vs. Ramdayal Uike and Ors.
