<p>Rajasthan Speaker C P Joshi on Wednesday filed a plea in the Supreme Court against the High Court's July 24 order, directing to maintain status quo on disqualification proceedings against rebel 19 Congress MLAs including Sachin Pilot.</p>.<p>In a fresh plea, he contended that the HC's order in relation to the proceedings before the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) is "constitutionally impermissible".</p>.<p id="page-title"><strong><a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/rajasthan-political-crisis-live-speaker-moves-sc-against-hc-order-to-maintain-status-quo-on-cong-mlas-disqualification-notice-866256.html#8notice-866256.html#8" target="_blank">Follow updates on the Rajasthan political crisis here</a></strong></p>.<p>He also claimed that it was directly in contravention of the settled legal position as well as the Constitution bench judgement in 'Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu’ (1992).</p>.<p>"When the final decision of the Speaker is amenable to judicial review on limited grounds, there was no question of the High Court entertaining the writ at the notice stage," he said.</p>.<p>The HC had on July 24 directed the Speaker to maintain status quo till it examined several legal questions, arising out of the writ petitions filed by Pilot and 18 other rebel Congress MLAs against July 14 notice under the anti-defection law. The MLAs had claimed the Speaker's action was in violation of their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.</p>.<p>"The High Court acted in gross judicial indiscipline and judicial impropriety in seeking to reopen settled issues decided by a Constitution bench of this court in Kihoto case," he submitted, questioning "extraordinary indulgence" granted to rebel MLAs.</p>.<p>"The submissions that whether the conduct of the respondent-MLAs tantamount to “democratic dissent” or “floor crossing” and not “defection” is a question of fact that only the Speaker as the ‘persona designata’ under the Tenth Schedule was entitled and empowered to go into," he maintained.</p>.<p>This is the second plea by the Speaker against the High Court's orders. Earlier, he challenged validity of July 21 order by the HC directing him not to proceed on disqualification notice till pronouncement of order on July 24. He had subsequently on Monday withdrawn his petition.</p>
<p>Rajasthan Speaker C P Joshi on Wednesday filed a plea in the Supreme Court against the High Court's July 24 order, directing to maintain status quo on disqualification proceedings against rebel 19 Congress MLAs including Sachin Pilot.</p>.<p>In a fresh plea, he contended that the HC's order in relation to the proceedings before the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) is "constitutionally impermissible".</p>.<p id="page-title"><strong><a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/rajasthan-political-crisis-live-speaker-moves-sc-against-hc-order-to-maintain-status-quo-on-cong-mlas-disqualification-notice-866256.html#8notice-866256.html#8" target="_blank">Follow updates on the Rajasthan political crisis here</a></strong></p>.<p>He also claimed that it was directly in contravention of the settled legal position as well as the Constitution bench judgement in 'Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu’ (1992).</p>.<p>"When the final decision of the Speaker is amenable to judicial review on limited grounds, there was no question of the High Court entertaining the writ at the notice stage," he said.</p>.<p>The HC had on July 24 directed the Speaker to maintain status quo till it examined several legal questions, arising out of the writ petitions filed by Pilot and 18 other rebel Congress MLAs against July 14 notice under the anti-defection law. The MLAs had claimed the Speaker's action was in violation of their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.</p>.<p>"The High Court acted in gross judicial indiscipline and judicial impropriety in seeking to reopen settled issues decided by a Constitution bench of this court in Kihoto case," he submitted, questioning "extraordinary indulgence" granted to rebel MLAs.</p>.<p>"The submissions that whether the conduct of the respondent-MLAs tantamount to “democratic dissent” or “floor crossing” and not “defection” is a question of fact that only the Speaker as the ‘persona designata’ under the Tenth Schedule was entitled and empowered to go into," he maintained.</p>.<p>This is the second plea by the Speaker against the High Court's orders. Earlier, he challenged validity of July 21 order by the HC directing him not to proceed on disqualification notice till pronouncement of order on July 24. He had subsequently on Monday withdrawn his petition.</p>