New Delhi: A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose on Friday directed the maintenance of status quo by the Karnataka assembly speaker on the disqualification/resignation of rebel Congress and Janata Dal (S) MLAs, adjourning the case to July 16. The bench agreed with senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, representing Karnataka chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, that the substantial questions involved in the case require detailed hearing.Questioning the basis on which the Supreme Court passed an ex parte order on Thursday directing the speaker to decide on the resignations of the rebel MLAs from the assembly within a few hours after 6 pm on Thursday, Dhavan drew the attention of the bench to the writ petition filed by the rebel MLAs (Pratap Gouda Patil and others v State of Karnataka and others), and its “overly political” statements.Also Read: Karnataka: Kumaraswamy Seeks Trust Vote; SC Directs Speaker to Maintain Status QuoDhavan underlined the sentence in which the rebel MLAs claimed that the chief minister no longer commands a majority in the Karnataka legislative assembly. He also invited the bench’s attention to the sentence in which they claimed that the administration has come to a standstill and maladministration is writ large. The MLAs then claimed that the government had been rocked by various scandals, chief among them were the IMA Ponzi scam, JSW land scam, and that the ruling coalition had been rocked by inner contradictions and was never stable. Dhavan then referred to their allegation that the speaker, by not accepting their resignations, acted in a mala fide manner.Dhavan asked the bench:“In the face of such allegations, would you not hear the Speaker and the Chief Minister, before issuing a direction to decide their resignations from the assembly?”He questioned the basis on which the court had to intervene on Thursday, without hearing the chief minister and the speaker.In light of the allegations levelled against the speaker and chief minister, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan said the Supreme Court must first hear them before issuing an order. Credit: PTIMandate defiedDhavan then read out paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, in which a member voluntarily giving up membership of the political party on whose symbol he was elected to the assembly is cited as a ground for disqualification. By saying “we resign”, the rebel MLAs have chosen to defy the mandate which they received from the electorate, Dhavan said. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the speaker to examine whether Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule stands violated, when read with the proviso to Article 190 (3)(b), he said.Citing the Supreme Court’s constitution bench’s judgment in Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu and Others, (1992), Dhavan said it had reposed faith in the office of the speaker. Issuing the judgment, then M.N. Venkatachalliah said:“It is inappropriate to express distrust in the high office of the speaker, merely because some of the speakers are alleged, or even found, to have discharged their functions not in keeping with the great traditions of that high office. The Robes of the Speaker do change and elevate the man inside.”Therefore, when the speaker says he would require time to read and decide the rebel MLAs’ resignations, he says so with great responsibility, Dhavan suggested. The ex parte order could not have been passed on Thursday on the basis of the overtly political arguments of the writ petition, Dhavan said.The senior counsel said the rebel MLAs wanted the court to declare that the speaker’s role is that of a post office, while deciding their resignations from the assembly, and that the proviso to Article 190(3) (b) demands mechanical compliance. Citing case law, Dhavan said judicial review of the speaker’s decisions is limited only to those cases where such decisions suffered from the vice of perversity.Earlier, senior counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, arguing for the Karnataka assembly Ramesh Kumar, submitted that the speaker’s decisions on resignations are not automatic. Singhvi drew the attention of the bench to Article 164 (IB), according to which a member of the legislative assembly who is disqualified from being a member of that house under paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a minister under clause (1) of Article 164, which enables appointment of other ministers by the governor on the advice of the chief minister. It commences from the date of disqualification till the date on which the term of his/her office as a member of the house would expire, or where he or she contests any election, till the date on which he is declared elected, whichever is earlier.He asked: “Why shall one resign from the assembly, if the consequences of resignation and disqualification are the same?” By resigning, the rebel MLAs want to avoid disqualification on the ground of defections, which would deprive them of being appointed as ministers (under Article 164(1) or appointed on remunerative political posts (under Article 361B) within the term of the present assembly, Singhvi explained.Reading from the statement of objects and reasons of the 91st Constitution Amendment Act in 2004, he said, the intention of parliament in enacting it was very clear: that members who suffered disqualification on the ground of defection should not be appointed as ministers or to remunerative political posts, as a reward. By resigning from the assembly prior to their disqualification, such members seek to avoid the rigours of the 91st amendment, he observed.Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the ten rebel MLAs, alleged that the speaker was riding two horses, by questioning the authority of the Supreme Court to issue directions to him, and by claiming that he is answerable only to the public. He claimed that the speaker’s duty to decide their resignations from the assembly has nothing to do with his duties under the Tenth Schedule. Asking the bench to issue a contempt notice to the speaker for defying its directions, Rohatgi said the speaker wants to keep their resignations pending, so that they become infructuous after their disqualification. He also alleged that the speaker was adopting double standards on the question of not deciding their resignations, before he considers the disqualification petitions against them.
