D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.versusD.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS.

                   [2012] 2 S.C.R. 327


                  D. SUDHAKAR & ORS.                           A
                             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. 32674-
    32678 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.