Rejecting the contention of the breakaway group to refer the matter to the Allahabad High Court, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice M M Punchhi said ``the matter needs examination as the developments in this regard all over the country are very disturbing.''

The bench asked breakaway group's counsel Ashok Desai ``as to why the Speaker (Kesri Nath Tripathi) hung on to the issue for such a long time. It was a matter of principle.''

Desai said the Speaker had time and again made it clear to the disputing parties that he was not interested in hearing the matter if his integrity was doubted.

However, both sides expressed total confidence in him and he decided the matter on merits recognising the split in the party.

Mayawati had said the 19 breakaway MLAs ought to have been disqualified as they did not form one-third of the total membership of the BSP in the Assembly and disobeyed the party whip to vote for the no-confidence motion against the Kalyan Singh government.

In view of the order of the Speaker, Mayawati had said in her petition that the court should consider the minority view expressed in the judgment given on the Anti-Defection Law of 1992 which held that the Speaker should not be the person to decide a disqualification case.

She pleaded that the present case raised several legal issues including whether leaders of legislative parties as defined under Rule 2(f) of the disqualification rules had the powers and privileges to be an authorised person to issue a whip or direction as contemplated under the Tenth Schedule.

The former chief minister contended that the law was enacted to stop defection on allurement of office and other considerations but the same had been negated as the defected BSP MLAs had been given ministerial and other posts.

It said the Speaker committed an error while passing an order recognising the breakaway group by overlooking the allurements made by the BJP, to which party he belonged, to the 19 MLAs of the breakaway BSP.

The issue also raised the question whether a person who was not a member of the legislature party could be authorised to issue a whip or direction despite the fact that he or she was not entitled to enter the House.