Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeals allowed.

D. Sudhakar & Ors. v. D.N. Jeevaraju & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 4510-4514 of 2011
Neutral Citation:[2012] 2 S.C.R. 327

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Altamas Kabir
  • Cyriac Joseph
Judgment Date
2011-05-13
Court Decision / Holding
Appeals allowed. The orders passed by the Speaker on 11.10.2010 and by the Full Bench of the High Court on 14.2.2011 are set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Detailed judgment will follow.
Final Disposition
Appeals allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • D. Sudhakar & Ors.

Respondents

  • D. N. Jeevaraju & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. P. Rao
  • • K. K. Venugopal
  • • Satpal Jain
  • • P. S. Narsimha
  • • Dinesh Dwivedi
  • • Jaideep Gupta
  • • Soli J. Sorabji
  • • Prashant Kumar
  • • Mahalakshmi Pavani
  • • Bimola Devi
  • • Triveni Potekar
  • • Ustav Sidhu
  • • Apeksha Sharan
  • • Filza Moonis
  • • Amarjit Singh
  • • E. Bedi
  • • Pooja Dhar
  • • Gopal
  • • Chandra Bhushan Prasad
  • • Bhupender Yadav
  • • Ruchi Kohli
  • • Saurabh Shamsherty
  • • Anish Kumar Gupta
  • • M.B. Nargan
  • • Deep Shikha Bharati
  • • P. V. Yogeshwaran
  • • Vikramjeet Banerjee
  • • M. B. Nargund
  • • Prasanna Deshmukh
  • • Rajeev Kr. Singh
  • • Vikramjeet
  • • Pritish Kapoor
  • • F. Jyotika Kalra

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. P. Rao
  • • K. K. Venugopal
  • • Satpal Jain
  • • P. S. Narsimha
  • • Dinesh Dwivedi
  • • Jaideep Gupta
  • • Soli J. Sorabji
  • • Prashant Kumar
  • • Mahalakshmi Pavani
  • • Bimola Devi
  • • Triveni Potekar
  • • Ustav Sidhu
  • • Apeksha Sharan
  • • Filza Moonis
  • • Amarjit Singh
  • • E. Bedi
  • • Pooja Dhar
  • • Gopal
  • • Chandra Bhushan Prasad
  • • Bhupender Yadav
  • • Ruchi Kohli
  • • Saurabh Shamsherty
  • • Anish Kumar Gupta
  • • M.B. Nargan
  • • Deep Shikha Bharati
  • • P. V. Yogeshwaran
  • • Vikramjeet Banerjee
  • • M. B. Nargund
  • • Prasanna Deshmukh
  • • Rajeev Kr. Singh
  • • Vikramjeet
  • • Pritish Kapoor
  • • F. Jyotika Kalra

Case Synopsis & Summary

D. Sudhakar & Ors. v. D.N. Jeevaraju & Ors. concerns whether independent legislators who extended support to a Chief Minister in a BJP‑led government retained their independent identity. The appellants, who were elected as independent MLAs, extended support to Shri Yeddyurappa during the formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party led government and later joined his Cabinet. The respondents contended that such conduct signified a surrender of independence and alignment with the BJP. The High Court and the Speaker had upheld the view that extending support and accepting ministerial posts effectively compromised the appellants’ independence. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with that submission. It held that merely extending support to the Chief Minister and taking up a ministerial berth does not by itself prove that the appellants decided to join, or have joined, the BJP as members or relinquished their independent identity. A key point is that an independent legislator is not required to express party allegiance in writing; the subsequent conduct does not uniformly equate to party membership, especially when the appellants were treated differently from BJP members. Accordingly, the court set aside the Speaker’s orders and the High Court’s decision and allowed the appeals, while noting that there would be no order as to costs and that a detailed judgment would follow.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that independence of an independent legislator is preserved notwithstanding support to the Chief Minister; while they supported Shri Yeddyurappa, that did not entail joining the BJP or surrendering independence. They asserted that independence does not require a written declaration of party allegiance; support and cabinet inclusion do not demonstrate a decision to join the party. The appellants highlighted that they were treated differently from BJP members and that coalition politics can function with independent legislators without erasing their distinct identity. They contended that simply forming a government with their support does not prove they joined the party; the extension of support and ministerial positions do not automatically negate their independence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that extending support to Shri Yeddyurappa for the BJP‑led government and joining his Cabinet signified affiliation with the party and effectively sacrificed the appellants’ independent identity. They argued that coalition formation inherently involves some convergence of political identity, and that accepting ministerial posts and participating in government formation evidenced a commitment to the BJP’s political project. In their view, such acts demonstrate the loss of independent status and the subsumption of the appellants’ identity into the ruling party’s framework.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against D. Sudhakar & Ors. v. D.N. Jeevaraju & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## [2012] 2 S.C.R. 327 ## D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. _v._ D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4510-4514 of 2011) MAY 13, 2011 B ## [ALTAMAS KABtR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] - _Legislature Independent legislators extending support to Chief Minister in the formation of the Bharatiya Jana ta Party led Government and also joining his Council of Ministers_ - C - _Status ofsuch independent legislators Held: It cannot be said that such independent legislators had sacrificed their independent identity._ The question which arose for consideration in these 0 appeals is whether by extending support to 'Y'-Chief Minister in the formation of the B~aratiya Janata Party led Government, the appellants"independent legislators had sacrificed their independent identity. Allowing the appeals, the Court E HELD: The submission that by extending support to 'Y' in the formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party led Government the appellants had sacrificed their independent identity cannot be accepted. The fact that F the said appellants also joined the Council of Ministers does not also point to such an eventuality. An independent legislator does not always have to express his intention to join a party in writing, but the mere extension of support to 'Y' and the decision to join his G Cabinet, was not sufficient to indicate that the appellants had decided to join and/or had actually joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, particularly on account of the subsequent conduct in which they were treated 327 H ## 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R. - A differently from the Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Therefore, the decision of the Speaker as upheld by the High Court is not sustainable. The orders passed by the Speaker and by the Full Bench of the High Court are set aside. The detailed judgment would follow. [Paras - B 2, 3 and 5] [328-G-H; 329-A-D] . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4510-4514 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.2.2011 of the High C Court of Karnataka at Bangalorein Writ Petition No. 3267432678 of 2010 (GM-RES). ## WITH - C.A. No. 4517-4521 of2011. - D P.P. Rao, K.K. Venugopal, Satpal Jain, P.S. Narsimha, Dinesh Dwivedi, Jaideep Gupta, Soli J. Sorabji, Prashant Kumar Mahalakshmi Pavani, Bimola Devi, Triveni Potekar, Ustav Sidhu, Apeksha Sharan, Filza Moonis, Amarjit Singh, E Bedi, Prashant Kumar, Pooja Dhar, Gopal, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Bhupender Yadav, Ruchi Kohli, Saurabh Shamsherty, Anish Kumar Gupta, M.B. Nargan, Deep Shikha Bharati, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Vikramjeet Banerjee, M.B. Nargund, Prasanna Deshmukh, Rajeev Kr. Singh, Vikramjeet, Pritish Kapoor, F Jyotika Kalra for the appearing parties. ## The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. We are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents that by extending support to Shri Yeddyurappa in the formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party led Government the appellants had sacrificed their independent · identity. The fact that the said appellants also joined the Council H of Ministers does not also point to such an eventuality. It is no ## D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. _v._ D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. 329 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] doubt true that an independent legislator does not always have A to express his intention to join a party in writing, but the mere extension of support to Shri Yeddyurappa and the decision to join his Cabinet, in our view, was not sufficient to indicate that the appellants had decided to join and/or had actually joined the Bharatiya Janata Party, particularly on account of the B subsequent conduct in which they were treated differently from the Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party. 3. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the decision of the Speaker as affirmed by the High Court. and we, accordingly, C allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Speaker on 11.10.2010 and by the Full Bench of the High Court on 14.2.2011. 4. There will, however, be no order as to costs. D 5. Detailed judgment will follow. N.J. Appeals allowed.