<p class="title">The Supreme Court junked a plea by the Congress party to refer the matter arising out rebel MLAs’ disqualification to the Constitutional Bench. The top court said that no substantial question of constitutional interpretation arose in the case to refer the matter to a larger bench.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The power of the Speaker to disqualify has been interpreted in a number of cases, and the present case does not require any broad-based reference which would only prolong the inevitable,” the judgement said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Such casual and cavalier references” should not be undertaken by the court in view of conditions prescribed under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which mandated a responsibility upon the court not to indulge in excessive academic endeavours and preserve precious judicial time, and effectively dispense justice in a timely fashion,” a three-judge bench led by Justice N V Ramana said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Congress, contended that since the issue involved the question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the case should be referred to a larger bench.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court junked a plea by the Congress party to refer the matter arising out rebel MLAs’ disqualification to the Constitutional Bench. The top court said that no substantial question of constitutional interpretation arose in the case to refer the matter to a larger bench.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The power of the Speaker to disqualify has been interpreted in a number of cases, and the present case does not require any broad-based reference which would only prolong the inevitable,” the judgement said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Such casual and cavalier references” should not be undertaken by the court in view of conditions prescribed under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, which mandated a responsibility upon the court not to indulge in excessive academic endeavours and preserve precious judicial time, and effectively dispense justice in a timely fashion,” a three-judge bench led by Justice N V Ramana said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Congress, contended that since the issue involved the question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, the case should be referred to a larger bench.</p>
