Mukul Roy(File photo)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Calcutta High Court's ruling which disqualified Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the anti-defection law.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing a notice on a plea moved by Subhranshu Roy, son of Mukul Roy, challenging the high court's order.
The top court ordered that the operation of the high court's judgment will be kept in abeyance.
Roy's counsel argued that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Roy's disqualification. The Bench was told that since Roy was unwell, his son has filed the plea.
His counsel submitted that the Speaker had rejected the petitions on the ground that the social media posts submitted to show the alleged defection of Mukul Roy were not authenticated in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the high court reversed this view, observing that strict adherence to Section 65B was not necessary in proceedings under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
The Bench also expressed reservations about the high court's reasoning that Section 65B will not apply in anti-defection proceedings.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi observed that the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court on Section 65B came in an election petition.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order while issuing a notice on a plea moved by Subhranshu Roy, son of Mukul Roy, challenging the high court's order.
The top court ordered that the operation of the high court's judgment will be kept in abeyance.
Roy's counsel argued that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Roy's disqualification. The Bench was told that since Roy was unwell, his son has filed the plea.
His counsel submitted that the Speaker had rejected the petitions on the ground that the social media posts submitted to show the alleged defection of Mukul Roy were not authenticated in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the high court reversed this view, observing that strict adherence to Section 65B was not necessary in proceedings under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
The Bench also expressed reservations about the high court's reasoning that Section 65B will not apply in anti-defection proceedings.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Bagchi observed that the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court on Section 65B came in an election petition.
