D.Sudhakar & Ors vs D.N.Jeevanraju & Ors

Supreme Court13 May 2011Cyriac Joseph · Altamas Kabir

SCC(2011) 6 SCC 381
Neutral2011 INSC 394
AIRAIR 2012 SC Supp 356
SCR[2012] 2 SCR 327

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An independent legislator who extends support to the formation of a government led by a particular party and joins that government's Cabinet does not thereby sacrifice their independent status or demonstrate an intention to join that party, particularly where their subsequent conduct shows they were treated differently from that party's members.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4510-4514 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.5966-5970 of 2011)

D. Sudhakar & Ors. ... Appellants

Vs.

D.N. Jeevaraju & Ors. ... Respondents

WITH

C.A.Nos.4517-4521 of 2011

(@ SLP(C)Nos.5995-5999 of 2011)

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

22. We are unable to accept the submission

made on behalf of the respondents that by

extending support to Shri Yeddyurappa in the

formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party led

Government the appellants had sacrificed their

independent identity. The fact that the said

appellants also joined the Council of Ministers

does not also point to such an eventuality. It

is no doubt true that an independent legislator

does not always have to express his intention to

join a party in writing, but the mere extension

of support to Shri Yeddyurappa and the decision

to join his Cabinet, in our view, was not

sufficient to indicate that the appellants had

decided to join and/or had actually joined the

Bharatiya Janata Party, particularly on account

of the subsequent conduct in which they were

treated differently from the Members of the

Bharatiya Janata Party.

33. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the

decision of the Speaker as affirmed by the High

Court and we, accordingly, allow the appeals and

set aside the orders passed by the Speaker on

11.10.2010 and by the Full Bench of the High

Court on 14.2.2011.

4. There will, however, be no order as to

costs.

5. Detailed judgment will follow.

................................................J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi,

Dated: 13.05.2011.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free