The Supreme Court ruled that unless a member of parliament chooses to change his political identification and continue to serve in under the new identity, he cannot be considered to have resigned from office.
According to the court's ruling explaining why it upheld a complaint filed by the Majority Leader in , Article 97(1)(g) and (h) of the Constitution solely pertained to the current term of and could not be claimed to have a futuristic application.
It follows from the above therefore that the only plausible conclusion that must necessarily flow from a holistic and contextual reading of Article 97(1)(g) and (h) is that an MP's seat shall be vacated upon departure from the cohort of his elected party in to join another party in while seeking to remain in that as a member of the new party," the court ruled.
Similarly, an independent MP who joins the cohort of a party in , while they remain Members of the for which they were elected as Independent Members, will have to vacate the seat tagged as that of an Independent Member," the court added.