No Bar In Considering Subsequent Events For Testing Legality Of Order Impugned In Writ Petition

The Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs Sharad Yadav (Civil Appeal 2004 of 2020) decided on 19.03.2020 has observed that there is no bar in considering a subsequent event for testing the legality of the order impugned or for molding the relief in a writ petition under Article 226.

Facts
In this case, a writ was filed by Sharad Yadav against the order of the Chairman disqualifying him as a member of the Rajya Sabha in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. An application was filed by Rama Chandra Pratap Singh seeking permission to place additional material on record to demonstrate some purported post disqualification conduct of the ex MP. This application was dismissed by the High Court observing that any event subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, cannot be considered to test its legality. Hence, the present appeal.

Issue
Can any event subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, be considered to test the legality of an impugned order?

Ratio
The Apex Court relying on the judgment of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 wherein it was held that Court can take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed observed that in cases where subsequent event or conduct of member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining to the time when member has incurred disqualification, subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.

The bench, however, dismissed the appeal, observing that the additional evidence, which was sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the basis for seeking disqualification.