 Hello and welcome to Chanakya IS Academy. I am Priya Kumari and today's special current affairs topic is Validity of Jharkhand Assembly Rules 2006. So before proceeding, points of discussion for today's topic is why this topic is in news then anti-defection law then curious case of Babu Lal Marandi and then way ahead. So why this topic is in news? This is in news because on January 13th the Jharkhand High Court will hear a case on legality and propriety of the power conferred to the speaker of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 6 of the Rules 2006. So before again proceeding further let us see that what is this anti-defection law? So you must have heard about Ayaram Gaya Ram which was a phrase that become popular in Indian politics after a Haryana MLA Gaya Lal changed his party thrice within the same day in 1967. The anti-defection law sought to prevent such political defections which may be due to reward of office or other similar considerations. The important provisions of anti-defection law is the 10th schedule which was inserted in the constitution in 1985 which lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the preceding officer of a legislature based on a petition by any other member of the house. A legislator is deemed to have defected if he either voluntarily gives up the membership of his party or disobeys the directives of the party leadership on a vote. So this implies that a legislator defying or abstaining or voting against the party whip on any issue can lose his membership of the house. So the law applies to both parliament as well as state assemblies. So what is this the issue surrounding Babu Lal Marandi in Jharkhand Assembly? So Babu Lal Marandi's JVM that is Jharkhand Vikas Morcha P stands for Praja Tantrik merged with the BJP. So JVM had won three seats in the 2019 assembly elections. Apart from Marandi the other two winners were Pradeep Yadav and Bandhu, Turkey or Tirke pardon for the pronunciation but it's Tirke. Yadav and Tirke were dismissed from the party for anti-party activities. JVM legislature party with Marandi as the lone MLA approved the legislature party's merger with the BJP. In fact the state and the election commission on March 6th stated that it was satisfied that JVM merged with BJP relying on Jharkhand state chief electoral officer's report that there is no information of any group representing to exit as JVM. However when Marandi sought the status of leader of opposition in the assembly a notice was served by the speaker citing para 6 of the 10th schedule which deals with defection. So what was there in speaker's notice? The speaker said the initial letters sent by Marandi asking for leader of opposition status dated February 16th attracts the 10th schedule of the constitution and asked to file an explanation before the speaker. However there was no specific section mentioned as on what ground the notice was issued. A reply was sent by Marandi questioning the sumoto power after which another notice was issued by the speaker stating that a case under 10th schedule for defection has been instituted and Babu Lal Marandi was asked to appear before the speaker's tribunal pertaining to the case. So this matter was completely challenged in the court in the Jharkhand High Court. So the sumoto power as exercised by the speaker based on the Jharkhand assembly 2006 rules is in contradiction and inconsistent with paragraph 6 of the 10th schedule of the constitution. This is what red petition of Babu Lal Marandi says in Jharkhand High Court. What does it say? It says in our amended red petition we have also questioned the validity of assembly rules 2006 as the speaker has no power to take sumoto cognizance to treat a case under 10th schedule of the constitution of India. So what is this paragraph 6 of the 10th schedule of the constitution which is the whole issue of the controversy. So paragraph 6 of the 10th schedule deals with the decisions on disqualification on ground of defection. It says that in case if any question as to whether a member of a house has become subject to disqualification under this schedule, the question shall be referred for the decision of the speaker of such house and his or her decision shall be final. It means that any MLA but not the speaker himself will have to find a complaint asking for disqualification on ground of defection referred being the keyword here. So what did the High Court order say? The court says that a bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujith Narayan Prasad said that the issue has been raised about the legality of the speaker's notice as well as assembly rule of 2006. So on December 17th the High Court said that the constitutional mandate remain to be superior and ignoring the constitutional mandate and putting the reliance upon the subordinate legislation may not be proper. Therefore the red petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case about jurisdictional error in issuing the notice by the speaker on the basis of the provision of rule 6 1 of the rules 2006 which actually gave relief to Marandi that the matter be kept under abeyance until further orders. So now what will happen on January 13th the Jharkhand High Court will hear whether the original provisions can be overstepped by the rules framed by the legislature. So that's all for today's topic we will meet you in the next topic till then take care and goodbye. Don't forget to like share and subscribe to our channel and press the bell icon to never miss an update.