Explained: How courts have interpreted voluntarily giving up membership of a party

Keeping the ongoing Maharashtra saga in mind, here's a look at how the courts have interpreted when MLAs voluntarily gave up their party membership.

As the political situation in Maharashtra worsens, India Today takes a look as to how the courts have interpreted when an MLA voluntarily gives up membership of a party.

According to Paragraph 2 of the tenth schedule, a member of a House belonging to a particular political party shall be disqualified from their membership of that House if they:

Voluntarily give up membership of their political party Para 2 (1) (a); or

Vote or abstain from voting in that House contrary to the directions of their political party Para 2 (1)(b).

In Ravi S Naik vs Union of India, 1994, the Supreme Court had held that voluntarily giving up membership does not necessarily mean that the legislator needs to formally resign, and that this can be inferred from the member’s conduct as well.

The court had said, “Even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership, an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs”.

In other words, if an MLA does not tender a formal resignation from their party, but stands for election as an MP from another party, or takes up a position in another party, that would also amount to voluntarily giving up their membership, and be grounds for disqualification.