Administrative Law

Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India

AIR 1994 SC 1558

Facts

Ravi S. Naik was a member of the Goa Legislative Assembly.
A petition was filed before the Speaker seeking his disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
Naik claimed protection on the ground of a split in his original political party.
The Speaker rejected this defence and disqualified him.

Whether the Speaker’s disqualification order was valid when he ignored relevant material and relied on disputed material without proper fairness.

Under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification.
Therefore, his decision is subject to judicial review.
Principles of natural justice apply to such proceedings.
A person must get a fair chance to prove his defence, especially when disqualification affects elected office.

Naik’s defence was that there had been a split in his party and that his group had at least one-third members, as required under the Tenth Schedule.
The Speaker rejected the split mainly because:
the prescribed intimation forms were not filed;
two members supporting Naik had already been disqualified by the Speaker earlier;
another member, Dharma Chodankar, allegedly denied being part of Naik’s group.
The Supreme Court found problems with this reasoning.
First, failure to file prescribed forms did not automatically mean there was no split. The Speaker had to examine the actual material showing whether a split existed.
Second, the Speaker wrongly excluded two members from Naik’s group by treating them as disqualified. Their disqualification order had been stayed by the High Court. Even if the Speaker disagreed with the stay, he could not ignore it. A stay order of a superior court remains binding unless set aside.
Third, the Speaker relied on letters from Dharma Chodankar stating that his signature was obtained forcibly. But these letters were not properly disclosed to Naik, and Naik was not given a fair chance to rebut them.
This affected the fairness of the process because the number of members supporting Naik was crucial. If the disputed members were counted, Naik’s group could satisfy the one-third requirement.

The Supreme Court quashed the Speaker’s order disqualifying Ravi S. Naik.
It held that the Speaker acted illegally by ignoring the High Court’s stay order.
The Court also found violation of natural justice because relevant material was not fairly dealt with.
The case is important because it confirms that anti-defection decisions by the Speaker are not immune from judicial review.
Use this case for: Speaker under Tenth Schedule acts as a tribunal and must follow natural justice.