Haryana Assembly has decided to ignore the High Court notice on the name of Abhay Chautala

Chandigarh: The Haryana Vidhan Sabha today passed a resolution on Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) MLA Abhay Chautala not responding to the notice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on nomination by the Speaker for two days.

Earlier, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kanwar Pal Gurjar moved the resolution and the house passed it by voice vote. Speaker Gyan Chand Gupta said, ‘The notice of the High Court is a violation of the rights of the legislature.’

On February 21, the Speaker had nominated Abhay Chautala for two days to challenge the post of Speaker. There was also an argument between the two.

The next day, Chautala moved the High Court to set aside the Speaker’s order. The High Court has issued a notice to the Haryana Vidhansabha Secretariat seeking its reply by March 23, but did not stay the Speaker’s order.

Abhay Chautala today argued that he could be suspended for a day, but a motion had to be moved to suspend him for more than a day. Rule 104B(1) of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Haryana Legislative Assembly allows the Speaker to name a member who defies the authority of the Speaker or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing his work .

Rule 104B(2) states that if a member is named by the Speaker, on a motion being made, the member may be suspended from the House for the remainder of the session. But for two days no resolution was moved before it was named after him.

However, the Speaker today referred to the case of Pandit MSM Sharma v. Shrikrishna Sinha and others (1961), in which an eight-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that “the legality of proceedings inside the Legislature of a State cannot be questioned. It is alleged that the procedure prescribed by law was not strictly followed”.

He also referred to the Keshav Singh case (1964), where the Supreme Court, in a Presidential reference, held that Article 212(1) of the Constitution lays down that the validity of any proceeding in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question. . on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”. The apex court further states that Article 212(2) confers immunity on “officers and members of the Legislature who are vested with powers by or under the Constitution to regulate the procedure or conduct of business in the Legislature or to maintain order”. being subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of those powers”.

Abhay Chautala hit back at the speaker and said, ‘How long will you keep taking wrong decisions? Congress MLA Neeraj Sharma opposed the motion saying that you are also closing the door of the court, and said that it is a wrong precedent.

In Keshav Singh’s case, the SC also says that if a legislative proceeding is illegal and unconstitutional, “it shall be open to inquiry in the court, the means of such inquiry being prohibited if the complaint against the process does not exceed This process was illegal”.