Judicial Indiscipline

Context: The Rajasthan High Court’s order, directing that status quo be maintained in the disqualification proceedings, showcases judicial indiscipline. 

Concerns related to the Rajasthan High Court’s order: A case of Judicial Overreach-

• No reason given by the high court: The order does not give any reason for admitting the petition and overruling objections to its admissibility, except for saying legal questions have arisen. 
• Specific prohibition: The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) bars High Court on examining the issues before the presiding officer has given his/her ruling.
• Illogical argument: Bench holds that the petition is maintainable even while proposing to examine whether a Constitution Bench judgment binds it or not. 

• The High Court is trying to find out whether Para 2(1)(a) which deals with disqualifying lawmakers who voluntarily give up membership of their party.

• But in 1992 the Supreme Court declared that Para 2 does not violate the freedom of speech, vote or conscience of elected members. 
• Many disqualification orders under Para 2(1)(a) upheld by the Supreme Court. 

• Judicial Impropriety: Admitting a matter without explaining how the law laid down by the Supreme Court does not bind a High Court raises grave questions of judicial propriety. 

Conclusion: The SC should not condone improper and premature judicial intervention by the Rajasthan High Court to address the issue of judicial indiscipline.