Maurya approached the Allahabad HC against the speaker’s decision on September 29, 2003. Even while the HC was hearing the writ, the speaker rejected Maurya’s original petition for disqualification of the 13. On April 30, 2006, the HC majority verdict held the speaker’s decision “in violation of the principles of natural justice” and asked him to “reconsider” the decision. On February 14, 2007, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the subject.

• What is the operative part of the SC order?

Para 54 of the SC order says: “The appeals filed by the 37 MLAs are dismissed and the appeal filed by the writ petitioner is allowed in the above manner.”

“Above manner” refers to the first 53 paragraphs of the SC judgment that explains the circumstances and the respective prayers of 37 MLAs on the one side and the BSP on the other.

• Who was the writ petitioner and what was the petition?

BSP leader Maurya was the writ petitioner before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC. He petitioned against the UP speaker’s ruling that the 37 MLAs who defected from the BSP constituted a split of the BSP with one third of its total MLAs and therefore did not attract disqualification under the anti-defection law. The 37 MLAs had split from the BSP in two batches — first 13 and then 24. The speaker had rejected the BSP’s petition for disqualifying the first 13.

• What did the HC do?

... contd.