The issue of BJP leader Babulal Marandiallegedly violating the anti-defection law has reached the Supreme Court.
On one hand the Jharkhand Assembly is planning to knock the door of Supreme Court against the order of the Jharkhand High Court to revoke the interim stay order on notice served to Marandi for violation of 10th schedule or anti defection law, on the other hand Marandi has filed a caveat petition in the Apex Court.
According to Marandi’s advocate RN Sahay, the BJP leader has filed a caveat petition in the Supreme Court, so that his side can be heard in the court during the hearing.
Incorporated under Section 148 A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Indian Law defines caveat petition as a precautionary measure taken by a person who holds a strong fear or uneasiness that some or the other case against him/her is going to be filed in the court of law regarding any manner.
The Jharkhand Assembly will file an SLP in the Supreme Court. The Advocate General, arguing for the Assembly, had said on December 17 that the Speaker has the Constitutional right to take suo-moto cognizance in violation of the anti-defection law. Marandi was granted interim relief by the Jharkhand High Court when he challenged the notice served by Speaker, asking why an action should not be initiated against him for the violation of the law.
The court had stayed the notice served in the matter till January 13, 2021, and asked the Speaker’s tribunal to not initiate any action against Marandi.
Marandi was sent a notice for the violation of anti-defection law on the application of JMM legislature Bhusan Tirkey on December 17. Marandi was an elected leader of the BJP Legislature Party after he merged his party JVM with BJP, but the Speaker’s Court refused to grant status to merger and due to this he could not get the status of leader of opposition in the Assembly. Also, the Assembly Speaker Ravindra Nath Mahato, taking cognisance of the merger of Marandi’s faction of the Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (JVM) with the BJP, issued a notice against him under the anti-defection law.
Marandi has challenged this notice. Marandi has claimed that the Speaker doesn’t have the power to take suo motu action under the anti-defection law and he can act in this concern only on receiving a complaint. However, the State government has argued that the Speaker has such power.