Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Mr. Rao contended that neither the Speaker nor the High Court had addressed these issues correctly in relation to the evidence available before him, as had been observed by the Constitution Bench in Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors. Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 270]. Mr. Rao submitted that events subsequent to the date on which an independent Member joins a political party is not  material for a decision as to whether the particular Member had, in fact, joined the political party or not. Mr. Rao also urged that neither the decision in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 747], nor the decision in the case of Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2006) 11 SCC 1], had any application to the facts of this case, since in the said cases what was sought to be explained by this Court is that the Speaker could not give a finding regarding disqualification on the basis of conduct subsequent to the date on which a M.L.A. becomes disqualified from being a Member of the House. It was also observed that when the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable one, the Court would be slow to strike down the view regarding disqualification on the ground that another view was better. Mr. Rao urged that in the instant case, reliance by the Speaker on the decision of this Court in the case  of G. Vishwanath Vs. Speaker [(1996) 3 SCC 353], is not of much assistance to the Respondents, because even from the conduct of the Appellants, it could not be said that they had joined the B.J.P. Legislature Party. Mr. Rao urged that the fact that the Appellants had attended meetings of the B.J.P. Legislature Party was of little help to the Respondents since in the Attendance Register of the meetings they had been shown as independent Members and a separate group under the heading "Independent Co-Members".

33. On the question of mala fides, Mr. Sorabjee submitted that as had been observed by this Court  in Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad [(2005) 11 SCC 314], a series of repetitive and almost abusive allegations against the Speaker was not sufficient to support a charge of mala fides, especially when it is leveled against a high functionary such as the Speaker. Mr. Sorabjee submitted that the law, as was also stated by this Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3], is clear that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavily on the person who alleges it, since the allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved.