Chidambaram digs out 1992 SC verdict to question Pilot's HC reprieve

Congress leader P Chidambaram, in a tweet on Saturday (July 25), quoted a 1992 ruling of the Supreme Court as he sought to explain that the judiciary can’t review a disqualification proceeding before a decision has been made by the Speaker or the Chairman of the House.

His tweet came a day after the Rajasthan High Court ordered status quo on disqualification notices to 19 rebel MLAs, including sacked deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot. The reprieve was an extension to what the Pilot camp was already enjoying since last week.

Related news: Rajasthan crisis: SC to hear Speaker’s plea against HC order on July 27

Stating that the words of the ruling are “simple and clear enough”, the former minister said it is for the people to judge the verdict themselves as the decision by the five judges of the top court was binding on all courts.

“To the average citizen who is mystified by the orders of the HC and SC, the following passage in simple English should be easy to understand,” he began.

“In 1992, the SC ruled: ‘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/Chairmen; and no quia timet actions are permissible’,” his tweet read.

Those words are simple and clear enough. That statement of the law by 5 judges was binding on all courts, HC or SC.

Now, dear average citizen, you be the judge.

— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) July 25, 2020

In another tweet, the Congress leader said, “Those words are simple and clear enough. That statement of the law by 5 judges was binding on all courts, HC or SC. Now, dear average citizen, you be the judge.”

The High Court had on Friday ordered maintaining status quo on the disqualification notice issued by the assembly Speaker to the 19 dissident Congress MLAs. The assembly speaker had issued the notice to the MLAs on July 14 after the ruling Congress complained to him that the legislators had defied a whip to attend two legislature party meetings last week.

A counsel for the Speaker said that “the writ petition has been admitted and the court has ordered for status quo on the notices dated July 14.”

(With inputs from agencies)