Again in paragraph 44: “What is urged on behalf of the Bahujan Samaj Party is that these 37 MLAs except a few have all been made ministers and if they are guilty of defection with reference to the date of defection, they have been holding office without authority, in defiance of democratic principles and in such a situation, this Court must take a decision on the question of disqualification immediately. It is also submitted that the term of the Assembly is coming to an end and an expeditious decision by this Court is warranted for protection of the constitutional scheme and constitutional values. We find considerable force in this submission”.

Yet again, in paragraph 45: “A remand of the proceeding to the Speaker or our affirming the order of remand passed by the High Court, would mean that the proceeding itself may become infructuous”.

• What did the SC say about the HC?

Para 11: “...we must express our unhappiness at the tardy manner in which a matter of some consequence and constitutional propriety was dealt with by the High Court.”

However, (in para 41): “We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the majority of the High Court in quashing the decisions of the Speaker.”

• What does the SC order say about UP speaker’s role in this particular case?

Para 29: “We have no doubt that the Speaker had totally misdirected himself in purporting to answer the claim of the 37 MLAs that there has been a split in the party even while leaving open the question of disqualification raised before him by way of an application that was already pending before him.”

... contd.