The Allahabad HC quashed the speaker’s ruling and “directed the speaker to reconsider the matter with particular reference to the petition for disqualification of 13 MLAs filed by the writ petitioner.” ( Para 10, SC Judgment)

• How did the matter reach the SC?

Both sides were aggrieved by the HC judgment. The 37 MLAs appealed against the HC judgment and wanted the decision of the speaker to prevail. Maurya, the writ petitioner, was happy that the speaker’s order approving a split in the BSP was quashed by the HC but wanted more relief from the SC.

The SC order lists the appeal of the writ petitioner (BSP) in para 20: “The writ petitioner himself has challenged that part of the (HC) order which purports to remand the proceeding to the Speaker by taking up the position that on the materials, the High Court ought to have straightaway held that the defence under paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution has not been made out by the 37 members of BSP and that the 13 of them in the first instance and the balance 24 in the second instance stood disqualified in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.”

• Has the SC remanded any part of the disqualification back to the speaker at all, as is widely reported?

Para 42: “The question then is whether it was necessary for the majority of the Division Bench of the High Court to remand the proceeding to the Speaker or a decision could have been taken whether the 13 members stand disqualified or not and if they are found to be disqualified, the balance 24 of the 37 would also stand disqualified, since in that case, there will be no one third of the Legislature party forming a separate group as claimed by them.”

... contd.