17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

NAME OF THE COLLEGE – NEW LAW COLLEGE

NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY- BHARATI VIDYAPEETH DEEMED UNIVERSITY

NAME OF THE PARTICIPANTS-

SPEAKER 1 – ANUSHKA BAHUGUNA

SPEAKER 2 – JIGYASA OJHA

RESEARCHER – AKANKSHA BAIBHAV

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE -

17th “SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION”

Before THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

(Under Article ______ of Constitution of India)
Case no. _______/2022

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Aloknath Patil

(Petitioner)
v/s
Dep. Speaker, Maharajya Legislative Assembly
(Respondent)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 8

I- WHETHER THE REBELLION BY MR. ALOKNATH PATILAND HIS SUPPORTERS

AMOUNT TO ANTI-DEFECTION? ........................................................................................ 8

1.1 Speaker is the final authority to decide on Anti-Defection law ......................................... 9

1.2 No provision of split under Schedule Tenth of Anti-defection Law ................................. 10

II- WHETHER THE MLAs’ REBELLION AN EXERCISE OF INNER-PARTY

DEMOCRACY OR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL OF DEFECTION? .................................. 12

2.1 Horse trading and Political opportunism ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2 Subversion of electorates ................................................................................................... 13

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 16

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryana by means of a writ
petition under Article 321 of the Constitution.

1
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs like habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, &certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1 ) &( 2 ), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ) (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

The largest democratic nation, Aryana, has laws that are comparable to those of India. A large
number of regional and national political parties influence national politics. One of Aryana's
most successful States is the State of Maharajya.

2019 Elections in Maharajya

In the Maharajya Legislative Assembly elections in 2019, the People's Party and Garjana Party
contested the election together as part of the Royal alliance. There were two other Political
parties who fought as Forward alliance.

However, People's Party and Garjana Party were unable to form a government amicably due
to a power-sharing conflict. As a result, the Garjana Party formed a separate "Maha forward
alliance" with the parties in the forward alliance.

Political crisis in Maharajya in 2022

In the month of June 2022, one of the Garjana Party's MLAs, Mr. Aloknath Patil, claimed to
have gathered the support of two-thirds of the MLAs and declared himself the leader of the
Garjana Party.

Meanwhile, the Garjana Party's leader, Mr. Sudhav Akhade, called an emergency party meeting
in which the rebel Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporting MLAs were absent.

As a result of the clear rebellion, Mr. Sudhav Akhade urged that disqualification proceedings
be initiated against Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporting MLAs for defecting from the Garjana
Party, which was approved by the Deputy Speaker of the Maharajya Legislative Assembly.

On the same day, two independent MLAs moved a no confidence motion against the Deputy
Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker gave the rebel MLAs two days to respond to the notice of disqualification.
Meanwhile, a no confidence motion was passed against the Forward Alliance as a result of the
defection of Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporting MLA.

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Subsequently Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporting MLAs formed an alliance with the
People’s Party & proceeded to form the Government in the State of Maharajya.

Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporters filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the
disqualification proceedings.

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-I-

Whether the rebellion by Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporters amount to defection?

-II-

Whether the MLAs’ rebellion an exercise of inner-party democracy or an unconstitutional of

defection?

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

I- WHETHER THE REBELLION BY MR. ALOKNATH PATILAND HIS

SUPPORTERS AMOUNT TO ANTI-DEFECTION?

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the rebel by Mr. Aloknath Patil
and the MLAs led to defection as per the anti-defection law. The anti-defection law
states that a group of lawmakers can only leave the party to join another party when
they have the support of at least two-thirds of the total MLAs of the original party. The
anti-defection law was enshrined in the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment and later
further reinforced by the 91st Constitution (Amendment) Act, in 2003.2
In our case, although Mr. Aloknath Patil had support of two-third MLAs but since they
did not join any party the no confidence motion was passed against the forward alliance
due to the defection of Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporting MLA.3
2. In Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya4 (2007) the Supreme Court held that
just one incident can prove that the member has voluntarily given up the membership
of the party.5
In the present case just the act of Mr. Aloknath Patil declaring himself to be the leader
and also not attending the party meeting called by the leader is itself sufficient to say
that he has voluntarily given up the membership of the party.6
3. In a political party, the party president is the ultimate authority who takes all important
decisions. A legislature party is just a wing of the political party, and it has no power
to take independent decisions on political issues such as ending an alliance or joining
another alliance and so on. In this case, this vital decision was taken behind the back
of the leadership of the political party by the legislative party leader. This is where the
anti-defection law comes in. Under this law, if a Member of a Legislature voluntarily
gives up membership of the party, he shall be disqualified from being a Member.7

2
91st AMENDMENT,2003
3
Dr Kashinath G Jalmi and Another v. The Speaker and Others (1993) 2 SCC 703
4
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others (2007) 4 SCC 270
5
Dr Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman Legislative Council (2004) 8 SCC 747
6
Chinnamma Varghese v. State Election Commission 2010 KHC 655
7
D. Sudhakar v. D.N. Jeevaraju (2012) 2 SCC 708

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

1.1 The Speaker is the final authority to decide on Anti-Defection law

4. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Speaker is a Quasi-Judicial
Body and his/her decision in all Parliamentary matters (including disqualification
matters under Tenth Schedule) is final, binding and ordinarily cannot be challenged in
the Court of law. Thereby, Speaker acts as the ultimate arbitrator.
5. Article 1808 of the Constitution gives the Deputy Speaker the power to conduct the
duties of the Speaker when the Speaker’s chair is vacant. This includes the power to
conduct disqualification proceedings under the Tenth schedule. Which was rightfully
exercise by the deputy speaker in our case.9
6. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu and Others10, it was opined that according to the Tenth
Schedule, the decision on whether to disqualify a member from the House is taken by
the Speaker or the Chairman. In such cases, the presiding officer’s decision is final.
The Supreme Court has held that the provision granting finality to the order of the
speaker/chairman is valid. While functioning under the Tenth Schedule, the presiding
officer acts as a tribunal and exercises judicial power. Decisions taken in such capacity
are subject to judicial review. However, while judicial review is permissible, it should
not cover any stage prior to the presiding officer taking a decision on the question of
disqualification.11
As per the fact of the case the decision of disqualification is not yet taken, only the
disqualification notice is served therefore, before any decision is taken by the presiding
officer it cannot be under preview of judicial review.
7. In Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly12, it was stated that the Speaker has exclusive jurisdiction to decide
disqualification questions that are referred to him.13
8. In Mannadi Satyanarayan Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Ors14,
The question was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Speaker or Presiding Officers.
The court held that there is nothing in paragraphs 1, 2, and 6 of the Tenth Schedule
that fetters the exercise of jurisdiction by the Speaker to decide this question.15

8
INDIAN CONSTI. Art 180
9
Election Commission Of India v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy 1996 SCC (4) 104
10
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu and Others, 1992 SCR (1) 686
11
Shivkripal singh v. V.V. Giri 1971 SCR (2) 197
12
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1
13
Sivadasan v. Kerala State Election Commission 2020 (6) KLT 484
14
Mannadi Satyanarayan Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Ors W.P. no. 28453 of 2008
15
State of Assam v. Banshidhar Shewbhagavan & Co. 1982 SCR (1) 554

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

9. Supreme Court in Dr Kashinath G Jalmi and Another v. The Speaker and Others16 held
that there is no power of review to the Speaker/ Chairman under the Tenth Schedule17,
and that the Speaker order is final being subject only to judicial review as held in Kihoto
Hollohan. In the present case, there is no question of judicial review as the decision of
disqualification is not yet taken only the disqualification notice is served.18
10. In the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur legislative
assembly19, SC held that the Speaker should decide on a disqualification petition within
a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed. Hence the speaker
in this case did it in guided period of time.20

1.2 There is no provision for split under the Tenth Schedule of Anti-defection Law

11. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Tenth Schedule of Indian
Constitution is silent about ‘split’ and only talks about ‘merger’. Tenth Schedule read
like “A member of a House shall not be disqualified under subparagraph (1) of
paragraph 2 where his original political party merges with another political party and
he claims that he and have the support of two-third member of original party”
However, in the present case Mr. Aloknath Patil did not merge with the party until no
confidence motion was passed against the original party which happened solely because
of the defection done by Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporting MLAs.21

12. In Shrimanth Balasahib Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker of Karnataka legislative assembly22

famously known as Karnataka legislative assembly case, in this case, 15 MLAs had
resigned from the congress and Janata Dal Secular resigned from their respective seats.
The government collapsed after this and the speaker disqualified the MLAs for a period
till the expiry of the assembly which was in 2023.23
The same scenario is in our case where due to the defecting MLAs the no confidence
motion has passed leading it toward collapse of the government.24

16
Dr Kashinath G Jalmi and Another v The Speaker And Others (1993) 2 SCC 703
17
TENTH SCHEDULE OF INDIAN CONSTI.
18
G. Vishwanathan v. The Hon’ble Speaker Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 353
19
Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. the Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2020
20
Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare & Others (2002) 5 SCC 685
21
Kshetrimayum Biren Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker Manipur WP (C) No. 332 of 2020
22
Shrimanth Balasahib Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker of Karnataka legislative assembly WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO. 992 OF 2019
23
Joseph K.M v. Babychan Mulangasseri and others 2015 (1) KHC 111
24
Chief Election Commissioner of India etc. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 611

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

13. In State of West Bengal v. UOI25 it was observed that “The exercise of powers,
legislative, and executive, in the allotted fields is hedged in by the numerous
restrictions, so that the power of the states is not Co-ordinate with the Union are not
in many respects independent”. Therefore, it can be concluded that legislature do have
restriction in respect to exercise their power.26
14. Hon’ble Apex court in Ravi S. Naik v. UOI27 contended that the moment the member
of political party has become disloyal to the political party by their conduct, that would
attract the ground for disqualification referable to the limb of section 3(1)(a)28.

25
State of West Bengal v. UOI (1964) 1 SCR 1241
26
Speaker Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal Keshari Parida (2013)11 SCC 432
27
Ravi S. Naik v. UOI 1994 (2) SCC 641
28
Sec. 3(1)(a) of Tenth Schedule

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

II- WHETHER THE MLAs’ REBELLION AN EXERCISE OF INNER-PARTY

DEMOCRACY OR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL OF DEFECTION?

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that there are no explicit provisions in
the Indian Constitution that lays down guidelines for regulating the conduct of the
political parties in India. However, Section 29 (A) of the RPA29, 1951 mandates the
registration of political parties. It states that political parties are required to inform the
ECI about changes in their office-bearers and addresses.30
2. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner31 it was stated that “At the
bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth,
with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper – no amount of rhetoric
or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of this
line”32
It is not the person for which the electorates are voting but the ideology of the party,
If we allow for changing party, we allow the subversion of confidence of electorates in
democracy.33

2.1 Mr. Aloknath Patil and the rebel MLAs were involved in horse trading

3. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Mr. Aloknath Patil and the rebel
MLAs were involved in horse trading and made a very well use of political opportunism
As we can see in our case the rebel Mr. Aloknath Patil after defecting from his original
party made an alliance with another party and made a government which clearly shows
that he was lured by offering post in the new government.34
4. In the very infamous case Aya Ram Gaya Ram- The politics of defection , it was stated
that between the period of 1967 to 1969 more than 1500 party defections and 313
independent candidate defections had taken place in the 12 states of the country. It is
estimated that till 1971, more than 50% of the legislature had switched from one party
to another. A common term which is used when we read about defection is “Horse

29
RPA 1951, Section 29 (A)
30
Sheeba James v. George 2012(3) KLT 237
31
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (1) SCC 405
32
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain 1975 SCR (3) 333
33
G. Dharma Mani v. Parassala Block Panchayat and ors. 2009 (3) KLT 29
34
Varghese v. Kerela State Election Commission 2009 (3) KLT 1

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Trading” of the legislators which in simple terms means shifting of legislators from one
party to another by monetary means.35
5. When Karnataka in 2008 witnessed horse trading of MLAs infamously called
'Operation Kamala' Under the operation kamala JD(S) supremo H D Deve Gowda had
demanded that Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa to be booked for horse-trading.
Complaint was registered the CM of Uttaranchal on horse trading charges and the same
should be followed in Karnataka was alleged.36
Horse-trading is not new for politics; cases of defection are mostly due to horse-trading
by either giving monetary benefit or greed of ministerial post. Therefore, it would not
be wrong to say that in the present case also Mr. Aloknath Patil is lured and this could
be established as per facts of the case as he has declared himself to be the party leader.37

2.2 The electorate don't choose leaders but the party ideology

6. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that electorate don't choose leaders but
the party ideology they belong to therefore allowing to change the party subverse the
confidence of electorates in the democratic system.38
7. The Kerala High Court in the case of Sheeba George v. The State Election Commission
of Kerala & Ors.39 Observed that a strict view must be taken of the defection of elected
representatives from political parties in order to sustain the faith of the citizens in the
democratic setup of conducting elections, and their confidence in the candidates elected
by the electorate. By defecting the party candidates also loses their faith it comes under
though they have complete freedom of choice from legislators, they should not be
allowed to contest in the same term.40
8. There are witnesses of a political storm that erupted in the state of Rajasthan wherein
Mr. Sachin Pilot, Dy Chief Minister, along with other members of the legislature
challenged the existence of the Congress government allegedly at the behest of
opposition members of the state legislature. It is seen that such political scrambles are
being staged to dislodge democratically elected governments with the least respect
toward collective judgment of the electorates.41

35
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 (1) SCC 222
36
State of Assam v. Banshidhar Shewbhagavan & Co., 1981 (4) SCC 283
37
MSM sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 359
38
Shivkripal singh v. V.V. Giri 1971 SCR (2) 197
39
Sheeba George v The State Election Commission of Kerala & Ors. WP(C) No. 11655 of 2012
40
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1
41
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors AIR 2018.

13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

9. In parliamentary democracies, parties are the bridge between voters and politicians.
Stability in party memberships is what helps voters in identifying candidates of their
choice and thereafter cast their votes. Defection violates this basic electoral pact and
undermines the authority of a party-based system.42

10. According to P.M. Kamath (in his Politics of Defection in India in 1980s), “whenever
a legislator elected on a party ticket or as an independent change his party affiliation
or joins a party, he commits a breach of faith”. He has further stated, “In most elections,
party identity has more influence on the minds of the electorate than the personal
prestige of the candidate. In fairness to the electorate, a defector should be made to
seek a fresh mandate from the individuals”.43

42
Balchandra L. Jarkiholi v. B.S. Yadiyurappa 2011 (7) SCC 1
43
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana 2006 (11) SCC 1

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MAY BE PLEASED,

1. To DECLARE that the rebellion by Mr. Aloknath Patil and his supporters amount to
defection.
2. To DECLARE that MLA’s rebellion is unconstitutional of democracy.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, & GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAY

15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES

Balchandra L. Jarkiholi v. B.S. Yadiyurappa 2011 (7) SCC 1 .......................................... 14

Chief Election Commissioner of India etc. v. Union of India & Ors. 1995 (4) SCC 611
........................................................................................................................................ …10
Chinnamma Varghese v. State Election Commission 2010 KHC 655…………………..11
D. Sudhakar v. D.N. Jeevaraju 2012 (2) SCC 708………………………………………12
Dr Kashinath G Jalmi and Another v The Speaker And Others 1993 (2) SCC 703 ............. 10
Dr Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman Legislative Council 2004 (8) SCC 747 ......... 8
Election Commission Of India v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy 1996 (4) SCC 104 ................. 9
G. Dharma Mani v. Parassala Block Panchayat and ors. 2009 (3) KLT 29 ...................... 12
G. Vishwanathan v. The Hon’ble Speaker Tamil Nadu 1996 (2) SCC 353 ...................... 10
Girish Chodankar v. Hon’ble Speaker, LA of Goa Writ Petition(C)No. 525/2020……….9
Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare & Others 2002 (5) SCC 685 ..... 10
Joseph K.M v. Babychan Mulangasseri and others 2015 (1) KHC 111…………………11
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana 2006 (11) SCC 1 ............................................................ 14
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors AIR 2018 ........................................... 13
Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. the Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Civil Appeal No. 547 of
2020.................................................................................................................................... 10
Kshetrimayum Biren Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker Manipur WP (C) No. 332 of 2020…….10
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu and Others, 1992 SCR (1) 686............................................... 9
Mannadi Satyanarayan Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Ors W.P. no.
28453 of 2008 ...................................................................................................................... 9
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (1) SCC 405 ....................... 12
MSM sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 359 ................................................... 13
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly,
2016 (8) SCC 1 .................................................................................................................. 13
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others 2007 (4) SCC 270 .................. 8
Ravi S. Naik v. UOI 1994 (2) SCC 641............................................................................. 11
Sheeba George v. The State Election Commission of Kerala & Ors. WP(C) No. 11655 of
2012.................................................................................................................................... 13
Shivkripal singh v. V.V. Giri 1971 SCR (2) 197………………………………………..11

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17th SHANKARRAO KANITKAR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Sivadasan v. Kerala State Election Commission 2020 (6) KLT 484…………………….11

Sheeba James v. George 2012(3) KLT 237 ....................................................................... 12
Shivkripal singh v. V.V. Giri 1971 SCR (2) 197 ............................................................... 13
Shrimanth Balasahib Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker of Karnataka legislative assembly WRIT
Petition (Civil) No. 992 of 2019 ................................................................................... 10
Speaker Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal Keshari Parida 2013(11) SCC 432.............. 11
State of Assam v. Banshidhar Shewbhagavan & Co. 1982 SCR (1) 554 ............................ 9
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 .................................................... 13
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain 1975 SCR (3) 333 .................................................... 12
State of West Bengal v. UOI 1964 (1) SCR 1241 ............................................................. 11
Varghese v. Kerela State Election Commission 2009 (3) KLT 1 ...................................... 12

STATUTES

91st AMENDMENT,200 ......................................................................................................... 8

INDIAN CONSTI. Art 180..................................................................................................... 9
RPA 1951, Section 29 (A ..................................................................................................... 12
RPA 1951, Section 29 (A) .................................................................................................... 12
Sec. 3(1)(a) of Tenth Schedule ............................................................................................. 11
TENTH SCHEDULE OF INDIAN CONSTI ....................................................................... 10

BOOKS

• Anti-defection law and Parliamentary Privileges by Subhash C. Kashyap

• The Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu.

• The Constitution of India by MP Jain.

• The Constitution of India by VN Shukla.

• Law and Medicine by Dr Lily Srivasta

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT