Naidu rejected Yadav’s basic contention that it was not him, but Nitish Kumar and his faction, who had voluntarily given up the membership of the JD(U) by breaking the Mahagathbandan with RJD and aligning with the BJP. Naidu in his order said the tenth schedule to the constitution that defines a ‘Legislature Party’ and the ‘Original Political Party’ does not take cognizance of any political alliance made by political parties. “The Mahagathbandhan was a political alliance of some political parties formed for the purpose of contesting the 2015 Legislative Assembly elections in Bihar and JD(U) was one of its constituents. As such, leaving or joining of any political alliance by political parties does not fall within the purview of anti-defection Law,” Naidu said in his order.
Yadav had also questioned his removal as Leader of JD(U) in Rajya Sabha and the legal and moral authority of K.C. Tyagi, Secretary-General of JD(U) to issue him a directive not to attend the rally called by RJD. “In this context, I have to go by the dictum that in a democracy, it is the rule of the majority and the voice of the majority that will have to be accepted. The very fact that Yadav had attended and addressed the public rally called by the rival political party, i.e., RJD in Patna on the 27th of August, despite written directive from Tyagi, advising him not to attend the same and cautioning him that his participation therein would be construed as voluntarily giving up membership of the JD(U), is enough to establish beyond doubt that he (Yadav) has no regard for the party directive and has blatantly violated it,” Naidu’s order mentions.
The order says that Yadav’s public denouncement of Kumar’s decision to withdraw from the Mahagathbandhan and align with the BJP and publicly aligning with the rival party of JD(U), namely, RJD, by supporting their leaders and policies, sharing of dias and addressing their meetings/rally, testify to the fact that he no longer supports the policies and decisions of the party, on whose ticket he was elected. “It also appears from the facts presented before me that Yadav, instead of raising his objections within the party forum, for which ample opportunities were available to him, went ahead with his criticism of the party policies and decisions of his party President in media as well as on public platforms, including meetings/rally of the rival political party,” Naidu ruled.
Naidu also referred to the order of the Election Commission that had rejected Yadav’s argument that the group led by Chhotubhai Amarsang Vasava, Acting President, to which he and his supporters belong, is the real JD(U). The Rajya Sabha Chairman also said that the disqualification petition had been decided by him in almost three months as there has been widespread criticism of some Presiding Officers, who did not take a decision on the disqualification petitions, under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, within reasonable time. “It has been noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also expressed its concern about the unnecessary delay in deciding these petitions by the Presiding Officers of the Legislature. I am of the considered opinion that, such petitions which go to the root of the democratic functioning and which raise the question, whether a particular legislator (lawmaker) is entitled to sit in the Legislature or not, should not be kept pending and dragged on by the Presiding Officers, with a view to save the membership of the persons, who have otherwise incurred disqualification or even to save the Government, which enjoys majority only because of such type of persons. I am of the view that, all such petitions should be decided by the Presiding Officers within a period of around three months,” Naidu said in his order.