A Court and a Fine Line

Context:  HC and SC routinely refuse to interfere in matters where the concerned authority has merely issued a show cause notice or granted an opportunity of being heard. 

Recent Constitutional Challenges

• The Speaker of the Rajasthan State Assembly’s request to SC for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition filed by him was granted without agitation.
• Rajasthan HC’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction: status quo be maintained about the impugned (oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity) notices.
• The writ petition in which this status quo order came to be passed will be listed for hearing on mentioning by the counsel for the parties. 

The Kihoto Hollohan Decision of the SC (1992) 

• The plurality upheld the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
• The minority struck it down on the premise that it
• Violated the basic structure of the Constitution
• Should have received the assent of state legislatures majority.

• If the majority opinion overturned, it would have required a seven-judge Bench to be constituted.
• The High Court is not empowered to unsettle Kihota Hollohan.
• Para 2 (1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule postulates the disqualification of a member of a House belonging to any party if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such a political party.
•  SC Judgement: considers paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution as valid. 
• Its provisions do not subvert the democratic rights of elected members of Parliament and the legislatures of the State.

Conclusion: Rajasthan High Court must take into account SC’s verdict in para 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.