Follow Us
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 23
Asserting their “indefeasible right” to resign as legislators, the 17 disqualified Karnataka MLAs on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that former Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar’s decision to disqualify them was an act of “vengeance” and “mala fide”.
“There is no doubt that a member has an indefeasible right to resign (from the house). It is only to be seen that the resignation is voluntary and genuine…The whole thing smacks of vengeance and mala fide,” senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi told a three-judge Bench led by Justice NV Ramana.
The Bench was hearing petitions filed by 17 disqualified Karnataka MLAs, who have challenged the decision of the then Speaker to disqualify them. The decision eventually led to the fall of Congress-JD(S) government headed by HD Kumaraswamy, who was forced to resign after losing a trust vote. Thereafter, BS Yediyurappa-led government was formed in the state.
Rohatgi pointed out that the Speaker failed to give the mandatory seven days to the petitioners to respond to disqualification applications moved against them by Congress and JD (S). Kumar violated the top court’s order by deciding against them for allegedly going against party whip, he added.
The Bench also restrained the Karnataka High Court from hearing a separate petition challenging Election Commission of India’s notification deferring the by-polls to 15 Assembly seats in the state. The Election Commission had on September 26 told the top court that it would defer the upcoming by-polls to 15 Assembly constituencies in Karnataka, scheduled for October 21, till the top court finally decided the 17 disqualified MLAs’ petitions.
The commission had issued a notification deferring the by-polls and fixed November 11 as the new date for Model Code of Conduct to come into effect in Karnataka.
Rohatgi said even if the disqualification was valid, it would be so till next elections and the disqualified MLAs can contest the by-polls.
“Our resignations should have been accepted by the speaker. There was no material to disqualify us. The motive for my resignation could be anything. He (Speaker) should not be bothered about it. He has to only see if the resignation is voluntary and genuine”, Rohatgi said
He was supported by senior advocate CA Sundaram, representing a disqualified MLA, who said the Speaker’s order was based on “imaginary reasons” and that he should not have gone into the motive behind the resignation.
On the issue referring the matter to a Constitution, the Bench said: “We are aware about the impending election. We will decide this issue”.
3
5