Chattisgarh High Court
B.N. Bajpai vs Ramdayal Uike And Others on 14 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)MPHT96(CG)
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
1. The petitioner, a practising advocate inter alia alleging that he being interested in the Constitution of India and the happenings of social and political events in the State of Chhattisgarh is entitled to file this pro-bono-publico.
2. The petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1, elected M.L.A. of the legislative constituency, Marwahi, District Bilaspur, had resigned between last week of December, 2000 and first week of January, 2001 from his office. The respondent No. 2 had accepted the resignation tendered by the respondent No. 1 in a servile manner without taking the attending circumstances, intent and object of the Constitution, while the respondent No. 2 was obliged to take into consideration the attending circumstances which persuaded the respondent No. 1 to tender his resignation, the intention behind tendering the resignation and the object behind constitutional provisions. It is further submitted that in the normal course of business, the respondent No. 3, the Election Commission, after receipt of the information from the respondent No. 2 about the vacancy of the scat earlier occupied by the respondent No. 1, declared election. The petitioner submits that the Election Commission has declared the programme for election. The petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 during the course of his election campaign, before his election from Marwahi constituency, must not have made a promise to his electors that on one fine morning he would tender his resignation from the office of MLA and as such it is legitimate to presume that he must have assured his electors that he would work for them. According to the petitioner, acceptance of the resignation of the respondent No. 1 would burden the public exchequer of additional expenses on by-election.
3. The petitioner submits that from the object and the scheme of the Constitution of India, it would clearly appear that the framers of the Constitution must never have anticipated that an elected M.L.A. just for nothing out of his whim-caprice and arbitrariness, would resign from the office thereby playing fraud with the electors and burden the public exchequer of unnecessary additional expenses for by-election. The petition further says that the submission of the resignation by respondent No. 1 and its acceptance by respondent No. 2 is a result of erroneous interpretation of Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the word 'or' has been inadvertently used between clause (a) and clause (b) of Article 190(3); while in fact the said word 'or' must be read as 'and'. The petition says that the Constitutional Provisions and intent of the Constitution clearly shows that the word 'or' is required to be read as 'and'.
4. According to the petitioner, Speaker of the Assembly has no authority to accept such resignation which is against the mandate of the electors and the provisions of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, tender of his resignation was immoral and acceptance was un-constitutional.
5. The petitioner submits that as the respondent No. 1-elected M.L.A. did not suffer with any disqualifications enumerated in Article 191 of the Constitution of India, he could not tender his resignation and as the respondent No. 1 was not disqualified under Article 191 of the Constitution of India, the Speaker was not entitled to accept the resignation simply reading the word 'or' as disjunctive. The petitioner submits that tender of resignation is unconstitutional and void ab-initio and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner had prayed for that the resignation of respondent No. 1 be declared as void, the acceptance of the resignation by respondent No. 2 be declared to be un-con-stitutional, be declared as null and void and the Marwahi State Assembly seat be declared to be not vacant and proposal for by-election be also quashed.
6. The petitioner appeared before us on 23-1-2001, heard at length, but Finding certain legal difficulties, the petitioner prayed for an adjournment, to accommodate the petitioner, we had adjourned the hearing of the petition to 7-2-2001. The petitioner was heard at length.
7. The petitioner submits that a member of the legislative assembly has no right to resign, firstly because the electors have no authority or right to recall him. The petitioner submits that resignation is lop sided ex-parte and is unconstitutional and as it has been tendered by respondent No. 1 without taking the public in-confidence which had elected him, the resignation in itself is bad. It is also submitted that constitutional provisions do not give any right to resign an elected MLA for a period of five years, therefore, he is obliged and duty-bound to serve his electors and his office can be declared vacant only if the member of the legislative assembly suffers with some disqualifications and tenders his resignation and the resignation is accepted by the Speaker after due enquiry. The petitioner submits that the word 'or' must be read as 'and' because the constitutional mandate requires such a reading. Referring to certain decisions of different Courts, petitioner submits that if the resignation does not give any reason which persuaded the M.L.A. to resign, ft must be held that there was no good reason for the M.L.A. to resign and in view of this fact the resignation tendered by M.L.A. would be bad.
8. Before referring to the arguments, it is held desirable that provisions of Articles 190 and 191 of the Constitution of India are appreciated in their true perspective. Article 190 is to be found in Part-VI of the Constitution of India. Part VI of the Constitution relates to the States. Articles 190 and 191 of the Constitution of India read as under :--
"190. Vacation of seats.-- (1) No person shall be a member of both House of the Legislature of a State and provisions shall be made by the Legislature of the State by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one house or the other.
(2) No person shall be a member of the Legislature of two or more States specified in the First Schedule and if a person is chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or more such States, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person's seat in the Legislatures of all such States shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislatures of all but one of the States.
(3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State-
(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in [Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 191]; or
(b) (resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may bef and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be,) his seat shall thereupon become vacant:
(Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.) (4) If for a period of sixty days a member of House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant : Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.
191. Disqualification for membership.-- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State-
(a) (If he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;)
(b) If he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court;
(c) If he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) If he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
(e) If he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.
(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.)"
9. Sub-Article (1) of Article 190 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be a member of both Houses of the Legislature, Article 190(2) provides that no person shall be a member of the Legislatures of two or more States. Article 190(3) is material for the purposes of this petition. Article 190(3) provides that in particular circumstances the seat of the House of the Legislature of a Slate shall become vacant. Article 190(4) further provides that if for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State without permission of the House remains absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant, provided that in computing the said period of sixty days, no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.
10. Present is not a case falling under the provisions of Article 190 (1), (2) or (4). The petitioner's argument is that sub-Article (3) of Article 190 must be read in its true perspective giving fullest respect to the intention of the frarners of the Constitution. Article 190(3) provides that if a member of a House of the Legislature of a State becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 191, then, his seat shall thereupon become vacant. In the alternative using the word 'or' as disjunctive, Article 190(3)(b) provides that if a member of a House of the Legislature of the State resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may he, his seat shall thereupon become vacant. Article 190(3)(b) in itself is not absolute; it is controlled by the proviso appended to it which provides that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as the Speaker/Chairman thinks fit, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.
11. From a perusal of Article 190(3)(b), it would appear that it gives a right to the elected MLA to tender his resignation to the Speaker or the Chairman and if his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, after making inquiry, recording the findings that the resignation is voluntary and genuine, the scat shall become vacant.
12. At this stage, we would also be justified in referring to Article 56 of the Constitution of India which relates to term of office of the President. Article 56 reads as under :--
"56. Term of office of President.-- (1) The President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office : Provide that-
(a) the President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Vice-President resign his Office;
(b) the President may, for violation of the Constitution, be removed from office by impeachment in the manner provided in Article 61;
(c) the President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.
(2) Any resignation addressed to the Vice-President under clause (a) of the proviso to clause (1) shall forthwith be communicated by him to the Speaker of the House of the people."
According to the Article 56, the President shall hold the office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office, but the President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Vice-President can resign his office. Article 55 of the Constitution of India provides the mariner of election of President of India. It would be apt to quote Article 156 of the Constitution of India which provides for the term of office of Governor. It reads as follows:--
"156. Term of office of Governor.-- (1) The Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
(2) The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article, a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office :
Provided that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office."
According to Article 156, the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office, Governor of the State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal. It would also be necessary to refer to Article 101 of the Constitution of India which relates to vacation of seats by members of Parliament. It reads as under :--
101. Vacation of seats.-- (1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his scat in one House or the other.
(2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, and if a person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of (a State), then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President that person's seat in Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State.
(3) If a member of either House of Parliament-
(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 102, or
(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, his scat shall thereupon become vacant :
Provided that in case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after makingsuch inquiry as he thinks fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.
(4) If for a period of sixty days, a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the house may declare his seat vacant :
Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days."
From a perusal of Article 101(3), it would appear that a seat in either House of the Parliament shall become vacant if a member becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 102; or resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker and his resignation is accepted.
13. We are referring to Article 56 to show that the President of the Union of India who is elected under Article 55 of the Constitution of India, has right to resign from his office. Article 101 has been referred to, by us, to appreciate that a member of either House of Parliament can also resign from his seat. Article 156 has been quoted by us to show that a person appointed by the President of India has a right to resign from the office.
14. The petitioner's contention that a person elected has no right to resign from the seat/office shall be dealt by us later, but at this stage we prefer to consider the meaning of the words 'resign' and 'resignation'. The word 'resign' with its grammatical variation ordinarily means to give up an office; abandon, abdicate, give up, leave, quite, relinquish, renounce, surrender, vacate, etc. It would also mean to give up an office, position, etc. Formally and with its variation the word 'resign' would mean to submit without resistance. The word 'resign' is a verb while the word 'resignation' is a noun. It means, the act of resigning and a formal written notice of such an act.
15. With regard to an office, 'resign' implies that the party resigning has been elected into the office which he resigns. A person cannot resign with which he is not entitled to. Ordinarily, a resignation is a spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right, but the law may provide that such resignation may taken effect from a future date or from the date of its acceptance. A resignation of an office to be complete employs the consent of the incumbent. It implies that the person resigning has been elected into the office which he resigns. In case where the law requires the acceptance of the resignation, then, the acceptance of the resignation makes the office vacant and not the submission of the resignation alone.
16. In the matter of Vikram Singh Vs. Sriram Ballabji, AIR 1995 MP 140, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed that the phrase 'by writing' cannot by any stretch of imagination, be considered as requiring the person resigning to write, the resignation in his own hand. The phrases 'by writing' under his hand" is used to indicate that the resignation cannot be oral and it must be in writing and must be by hand i.e., it must bear his signature. The High Court further observed that if the letter is typed or type written, but bears the signatures of the person, then there is no infirmity.
17. 'Resignation' in the ordinary parlence also means the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right. The maxim "resionatto est jiris propii spontanea refutatia" is in relation to an office which converts the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. "To relinquish an office" means "to cease to hold" the office or to "lose hold of the office. The resignation which projects the intention of the person shows that he wants to detach or unfasten or wants to snap the knot or link which was attaching him with his office and he was foregoing all the obligations and privileges attached with the said office. The 'resignation' virtually is a complete and effective act of resigning office and it severs the link of the resignor with his office and terminates it tenure. The word 'resignation' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Mism, 1978 Volume II SCC 301. The interpretation of the word 'resignation' is no more res- Integra.
18. From the above discussion, it would clearly appear that the word 'resign' and 'resignation' and their grammatical variation mean a voluntary act on the part of the incumbent to give up all his obligations and privileges attached to the office which he occupied.
19. Article 190 and the above other quoted Articles of the Constitution of India do provide an authority to the incumbent to resign from the office. The submission of the petitioner is that the word 'or' must be read as 'and'. For supporting his contention, the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the matter of State of Bombay Vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala and another, AIR 1957 SC699. In the said case, the Supreme Court white interpreting the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Bombay Lotteries and Price Competition Control and Tax Act, observed that looking to the intention of Legislature, the word 'or' must be read as 'and'. Looking to the language employed in clause 2(1) (d) of the Act, Their Lordships observed that the clear intention of the Legislature as expressed in the impugned Act was to read the word 'or' as 'and'. Their Lordships further observed that the well known cannos of construction of statutes permit a Court of law to do so.
20. The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is normally conjunctives at times but they are read as vice-versa, to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the context. A successful reference may be made to the various judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 1450, AIR 1980 SC 360, AIR 1984 SC 684 and AIR 1986 SC 1162. One can read 'or' as 'and' in a statute. But it cannot be done unless one is obliged because 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and 'and' does not generally mean 'or'. According to Lord Halsbury the reading of 'or' as 'and' is not to be resorted to, "unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention which requires that to be done". But if the literal reading of the words produces an unintelligible or absurd result 'and' may be read for 'or' even though the result of so modifying the words is less favourable to the subject, provided that the intention of the legislature is otherwise quite clear. Speaking generally, a distinction may be made between positive and negative conditions prescribed by statute for acquiring a right or benefit. Positive conditions separated by 'or' are read in the alternative but negative conditions connected by 'or' are construed as cumulative and 'or' is read as 'nor' or 'and' (Ref. G.P. Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation).
21. The question for consideration is whether the word 'or' occurring between Article 190(3)(a) and Article 190(3)(b) is to be read as a disjunctive or is to be read as 'and' as a conjunctive.
22. Article 190(3) provides that if a member of a House of the Legislature of a State becomes subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 191 his seat shall thereupon become vacant. It gives the authority concerned to simply declare that because the member of the House of the Legislature of a State has suffered with any of the disqualification mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 191 that his seat has become vacant. Article 191(1) provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he suffers with or is covered under either of sub-clause (a) to sub-clause (e) of Article 191. Clause (2) of Article 191 provides that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. A conjoint reading of Article 190(3)(a) with Article 191 would clearly project the intention of the Legislature or the framers of the Constitution. It clearly provides that a person who suffers with any of the disqualification cannot be chosen, as member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative council, therefore, if after his election/selection/nomination he subjects himself to any of the disqualification mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 191, then his scat shall become vacant.
23. For the purposes of sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of Article 190, we may again read the said clause which for the purposes of this petition would mean that the seat of a member of a House of the Legislature of a State would become vacant if the member resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be. The act of resignation whether was voluntary or not is required to be enquired into by the Speaker or the Chairman in accordance with the proviso appended to Article 190(3)(b). The resignation if is shown to be voluntary or of one's freewill and genuine, then the same may be accepted but if the Speaker or the Chairman records his satisfaction that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation. Clause (b) of Article 190(3) gives an absolute right to the member of the House of the Legislature of the State to resign his seat. The only impediment in accepting the resignation is the enquiry which the Speaker/Chairman is bound to conduct. If no enquiry is conducted by the Speaker or the Chairman and the resignation is accepted, then the member of the House may challenge the act of the acceptance on the ground that the act of resigning was neither voluntary nor the resignation was genuine.
24. The submission of the petitioner is that the word 'or' occurring at the end of Article 190(3)(a) and before beginning of sub-clause (b) of Article 190(3) must be read as 'and'. The petitioner submits that as the elected member has no right to resign, the word 'or' must be read as 'and'. He wants to submit that a person has a right to resign only if he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or (2) of Article 191.
25. According to him, where a member suffers with or becomes subject to any of such qualifications, only then he has a right to resign his seat otherwise not.
26. We are afraid that the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted because if the word 'or' is read as 'and' it would mean that a person who wants to resign of his own for any reason whatever it is, or, which are personal to him, cannot resign. Take a case where a man becomes incapable of attending the meetings and finding it difficult that he is unable to take part in the meetings of the Legislative Assembly then too he would not be able to resign. Assuming a person suffers with some ailment or disease which does not permit him to move out or lake part in the meetings of the Legislative Assembly then too despite his honest and sincere desire he would not be permitted to resign. When a question was put to the petitioner as to what will happen in such a situation the petitioner bluntly stated that in accordance with clause (4) of Article 190 such a person who does not attend the meeting for a period of 60 days without permission of the House, the House may declare his seat vacant. The submission of the petitioner is that such a member cannot resign but has to incur a disqualification and then he can be removed.
27. Started with the arguments of the petitioner, we asked him that if a person becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or (2) or Article 191 does not resign his seat, then what will happen. The petitioner showing his utter disrespect not only to the Court but to such a Member of Assembly said that if he does not resign after suffering a disqualification he can be kicked out from the House of the Legislature of a State. We fail to understand as to why in accordance with constitutional provisions a man before vacating his seat is required to suffer a disqualification and cannot resign of his volition. There may be a variety of reasons. There may be myriad reasons for a member not to continue in the House of the Legislature of a State. If the argument of the petitioner is accepted, it would put such a member to ransom. It would lead to such anarchaism that a man who wants to resign from the office would be compelled to incur some disqualifications before he is removed. The law does not require that a man should suffer with some disqualification before he can tender his resignation from his office. Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 190(3) of the Constitution of India talk of two different contingencies. The first is the disqualification where without a resignation of the member the seat becomes vacant and in the second contingency the man/member of his own volition tenders his resignation. It is not the mandate of the Constitution nor it would be prudent on out part to hold that a man can resign only if he suffers with some disqualification. If the petitioner's argument that in case of non-submission of the resignation where a man suffers with disqualification the member can be removed and the seat becomes vacant then there was no need of sub-clause (b) of Article 190(3) of the Constitution of India. The addition of the proviso by the Constitution (33rd amendment) Act, 1974 would make the intention of the Legislature very clear. If the man had already suffered with some disqualifications and does not tender his resignation and can be removed or as the petitioner says kicked out, then there was no need to append the proviso to sub-clause (b) of Article 190(3) of the Constitution of India.
28. Proviso simply takes care of sub-clause (b) of Article 190(3) of the Constitution of India. The Speaker or the Chairman have been entrusted with the obligation of making an enquiry into the voluntariness or genuineness, of such a resignation. The frames of the Constitution and the Parliament which made the amendment knew well that some unscrupulous person may force or obtain unvoluntary resignation and may try to misuse it, therefore, the requirement of an enquiry was made essential.
29. We are unable to read the word 'or' as 'and'.
30. The petitioner submits that by the Constitution (33rd amendment) Act, 1974 sub-clause (b) of Article 190(3) has been substituted but as the word 'or' has not been taken care of, therefore, it must be held that clause (a) ends with a semicolon and the word 'or' is a part of clause (b) of Article 190(3) of the Constitution of India, the word 'or' which had been used as a disjunctive to separate the effect and the scope of the two sub- clauses does not survive and, it is only clause (b) of Article 190(3) which stands substituted. The argument is misconceived. The word 'or' has been used as a disjunctive. Clause (a) ends with a semicolon and thereafter use of the word 'or' would express the intention of the Constitution that it was talking of two different situations. Even after the amendment the word 'or' would remain and survive in the statute as it has its own identity. It deserves to and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1965 Allahabad 536 (Surat Singh Yadav vs. Sudama Prasad Goswami) to contend that resignation must contain ihe reasons. In the said matter the High Court of Allahabad was considering the provisions of Rule 278 of the Rules of the Procedure and Conduct of Business of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 1958. Rule 278 provided the form of resignation. Resignation was required to be in the following form :--
To, The Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh.
Sir, I hereby tender my resignation of my seat in the House with effect from ..... (date) forenoon/afternoon.
Place..... Yours faithfully, Date...... (Signature of Member of the House)
The petitioner submits that if the Assembly provides for a form then the reasons are not required to be given but if the Assembly or the Rules for Conduct of the Business do not provide for a form then the resigning member is obliged to inform the electors as to what persuaded him to tender his resignation. The submission of the petitioner is devoid of any force and is per incuriam the very same judgment on which he is placing his reliance. The judgment says that the form was in accordance with Article 190(3)(b). The judgment says that Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India prescribes the bare ingredients of the transaction of resignation, leaving the details of its practical application to be worked out by the rules framed under Article 208. Whether there arc rules or no rules the provisions of the Constitution would be supreme. If any rule contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India especially Article 190(3)(b) requires a member of the Legislature of the State then such a rule or rule of Business would be ultra vires the Constitution. When the Constitution of India provides that a man can resign of his own then it would not be proper to read that such a person must give the reasons which persuade him to tender his resignation. The judgment in the matter of Surat Singh (supra) does not help the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed his reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the matter of S.R. Raghavandhnam Vs. C.P. Chitrarasu and others, AIR 1973 Madras 50. We have gone through the said judgment. In the said matter, the petitioner is a member of Tamilnadu Legislative Council had sought quashment of the notification dated 27-1-1971 issued by the Chairman, Tamilnadu Legislative Council on the ground that the did not cease to be a member of the house and the notification as such should be deemed to be inoperative in the eye of law. In the said matter, the High Court observed that a letter of resignation given by such a member in his own hand, but addressed to the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, is the imposition of a voluntary disqualification on the person. Therefore if a disqualification is thus brought about on his own volition by the member writing a letter of resignation under his hand and addressed to the Chairman, then the seat shall become vacant. The High Court also observed that the word "thereupon" in Article 190(3) depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The word indicates that the Court can in certain circumstances enquire into the allegations, if made by the writer of the letter of resignation, that the letter ought not to be accepted on its face, but should be subjected to the scrutiny and further evidence.
31. In our opinion, the said judgment does not further the case and cause of the petitioner. The law provides that if the resignation is submitted to the Speaker/Chairman, then the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, would make enquiry into the fact of the resignation.
32. In the present case, on 6-2-2001, the petitioner has filed three documents; the first one is a photostat copy of the letter of resignation submitted by respondent No. 1, the second document is a notification issued by the Secretary, Legislative Assembly. Chhattisgarh and the third document is a copy of gazette (extra-ordinary) dated 3rd Jan., 2001. We are surprised to see the document dated 26-12-2000. This was a letter of respondent No. 1 addressed to respondent No. 2. The copy is not a true copy, but is a photostat copy of the original. Not only the document is a resignation, but it contains the minutes of the Enquiry which was conducted by the Speaker of Chhattisgarh Assembly. It bears the signatures of the Speaker of the Chhattisgarh Assembly. Ordinarily, such a document is confidential. One can understand that an ordinary or a true copy is filed by the petitioner, but this document, a photostat copy of the original, does not bear any seal or signature of office or the officer which had issued it. It only bears an endorsement of the petitioner saying that he believes it to be true copy. We are shocked to see that a document like this is easily available to anybody. The document must be a pait of the official records and everybody would not have an access to it. The availability of such a confidential document with the petitioner speaks volumes.
33. From the said document and the enquiry report of the Speaker of Chhattisgarh Assembly, it would clearly appear that in accordance with the proviso appended to Article 190(3)(b), the Speaker did make an enquiry and after recording his satisfaction, not only appended his signatures, but required respondent No. 1 to put his signatures in token of acceptance of the enquiry.
34. The petitioner submits that politics is changing its face, therefore, the Court must read the constitutional provisions to mean that an elected person has no right or authority to resign. In a Court of law, the principles of politics have no role to play. The principles of politics used by Politicians or public in the praise and condemnation of politics, its administration or the words 'just' and 'unjust' and every often peoples' right as if the ideas of the politics and morality-were co-extensive. There are indeed very good reasons why the politics should have the most prominent place in the criticism of the political system or the democracy. Yet, it is important to see that it is distinct segment of morality and the politics and its administration may have or lack excellancies of different kinds. What is correct and right in the eyes of one man may be scrutinized as wrong and bad, by the other man. After all, every body has his own view of looking at the things. One may say that the glass is half-full and the other may say that the glass is half empty. The truth remains that the container is larger than the contents, but each has a right to see the things differently and the person who has the right of expression cannot say that the view of another is against the provisions of the Constitution of India. The principles of law, justice and morality also say that it is the view of a Judge which prevails and not what could be termed as the real truth. The submission of the petitioner that one must assign the reasons before his resignation is accepted, may be good on the anvil of morality, but if the law does not require it, then the morality has no role to play.
35. The submission of the petitioner that as the electors have no right of recall of the member of the Legislative Assembly, it must be held that such a member has no right to resign now requires consideration by this Court. The substance of the argument is that the electors' society has a right over such a member because white electing him, they have reposed some confidence in him. As the electors society has elected him, their confidence cannot be betrayed and such a person is not entitled to resign. The question is of an individual right against the right of the society. What, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignily of the individual over himself ? Where does the authority of the society begin ? How much of the human life should be assigned to individuality and how much to the Society ?
36. Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particular concerns it. To individually should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to Society, the part which chiefly interests society. According to John Stuart Mill though Society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligation from it, every one who receives the protection of Society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in Society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. But this does not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by the others ought not to be in any way affected by his self regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests, its, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases even of contempt. Obviously, when a person assures a Society that if elected, he would represent them for the period for which he is elected. But that would be his social or moral obligation.
37. The question is whether a person can put to a ransom and cannot be allowed to put the chair or office. Would the Rules which govern a social/moral contract and a society would over- ride the provisions of Constitution of India ? Would the very preamble of." the Constitution which says that 'We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens', would become redundant and useless. When the people of India have given the Constitution to themselves they knew well that they would be bound by the provisions of Constitution of India, their rights and liabilities would be governed under the provisions of the Constitution of India and nothing would over-ride the provisions of the Constitution of India. The laws may be examined on the anvil of the Constitution of India and if found to be illegal, unjust or so, then the same may be quashed or declared as ultra-vires. But contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India, which provides that every body would have justice-social, economic and political, a man cannot be put to ransom, simply because without assigning any reason, he resigns from the office held or the seat occupied by him. In a Court of law, we are not required to consider the moral aspect of the matter. We have taken oath to upheld the Constitution and the laws made by it.
38. After giving our anxious considerations to the arguments raised by the petitioner, we are unable to hold that the word 'or' occurring after clause (a) and before clause (b) of the Article 190(3) of the Constitution of India, is to be read as 'and'. Even on the other ground, we are unable to concede to the arguments of the petitioner.
39. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.
40. Writ Petition dismissed.