Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday dismissed the petition of the three BJP The MLAs will withdraw their suspension from the entire budget session of the Assembly.
Justice dismissing the petition Shamim Akhtar said Constitution It imposed several restrictions on the courts to review the alleged arbitrary actions of the Legislative Assembly and required a detailed examination of facts and law.
The three BJP MLAs – M Raghunandan Rao, Eatela Rajender and T Raja Singh – in their interim petition, had sought a stay on their suspension.
Partially agreeing with Advocate General BS Prasad, who had argued against any court interference in legislative matters, the judge said: “Even if some of the material on which the action was taken is found to be irrelevant. But even then the court will not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action.”
The judge, however, said a detailed inquiry into the issue would be done later. Senior advocate D Prakash Reddy, appearing for the aggrieved MLAs, submitted that the suspension was pre-planned and was done within minutes. He argued that Rule 340 of the Assembly Rules gives the power to name and suspend a member only to the Speaker and not to anyone else.
“In this case, the members to be suspended were named by the Minister of Animal Husbandry and hence, the suspension is illegal,” Reddy said. Stating that the authorities did not give him any material on his suspension, he submitted media clips to substantiate his argument. The judge, after looking at the newspaper clippings, said that it did not show what actually happened in the House that day.
The judge also went through the news video clips handed over to him and said that he too did not show why the animal husbandry minister moved a motion against the three MLAs. “For now, there is no prima facie case in favor of the three MLAs that the Assembly resolution suffers from substantial illegality and jurisdictional error.
Rule 340 states that members can be suspended only for the remainder of a session and suspensions also speak about the current session,” the judge said, adding that the violation of rule 340 was not too much.
Justice dismissing the petition Shamim Akhtar said Constitution It imposed several restrictions on the courts to review the alleged arbitrary actions of the Legislative Assembly and required a detailed examination of facts and law.
The three BJP MLAs – M Raghunandan Rao, Eatela Rajender and T Raja Singh – in their interim petition, had sought a stay on their suspension.
Partially agreeing with Advocate General BS Prasad, who had argued against any court interference in legislative matters, the judge said: “Even if some of the material on which the action was taken is found to be irrelevant. But even then the court will not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action.”
The judge, however, said a detailed inquiry into the issue would be done later. Senior advocate D Prakash Reddy, appearing for the aggrieved MLAs, submitted that the suspension was pre-planned and was done within minutes. He argued that Rule 340 of the Assembly Rules gives the power to name and suspend a member only to the Speaker and not to anyone else.
“In this case, the members to be suspended were named by the Minister of Animal Husbandry and hence, the suspension is illegal,” Reddy said. Stating that the authorities did not give him any material on his suspension, he submitted media clips to substantiate his argument. The judge, after looking at the newspaper clippings, said that it did not show what actually happened in the House that day.
The judge also went through the news video clips handed over to him and said that he too did not show why the animal husbandry minister moved a motion against the three MLAs. “For now, there is no prima facie case in favor of the three MLAs that the Assembly resolution suffers from substantial illegality and jurisdictional error.
Rule 340 states that members can be suspended only for the remainder of a session and suspensions also speak about the current session,” the judge said, adding that the violation of rule 340 was not too much.