BJP three MLA’s T. Thangzalam Haokip, Samuel Jendai and S. Subhaschandra Singh on On June 17, 2020 filed a submitted resignation in written to speaker of the Manipur assembly by their own hand under writ petition in to withdraw from the Manipur legislative assembly and announced in the press conference.
The speaker of the assembly accepted the resignation right away without even upholding a enquiry which was mandatory to do under article Rule 315(3) of the “Procedure & Conduct Rules” read with Article 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution according to the court. To check whether the resignation was fully genuine or done voluntarily and not under any kind of pressure.
High court of the Manipur uphold the accepting resignation by the speaker of the assembly as they demanded for the enquiry should have done before the resignation was accepted .
A bench of Justices UU Lalit, SR Bhat and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the plea filed by high court against the speaker of Manipur legislative assemble accepting the resignation of three BJP’s MLA T. Thangzalam Haokip, Samuel Jendai and S. Subhaschandra Singh.
Senior advocate Nikhil Nayar hired by them submitted in court that no enquiry was done by speaker before giving approval to the resignation in defence he took the recent judgment of Supreme Court in same resignation or disqualification Karnataka MLA case of (Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka).
He also added that the resignation was partly done under due influence of Oppositions and they also took this as a reason of resignation which was announced in the press conference.
Justice UU Lalit, after analysing the case asked them did they filed police complaint regarding pressure put on them and senior counsel acted negative on the situation. He also remarked the note of plaintiff that the press conference was biased but he due to no police complain they dismissed the case as they cannot go on the basis of ipse dixit.