In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court today upheld the disqualification of 17 Karnataka MLAs who had resigned earlier this year..However, the part of the order passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Assembly barring the former Congress and JD(S) MLAs from contesting elections for the duration of the Assembly, has been set aside..The Court observed that the Speaker does not have the power to indicate the duration for which a member may not contest elections after being disqualified or after resigning..The judgment was rendered today by a three-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, and Krishna Murari after the Court reserved orders in the case on October 25..At the outset, the Bench noted that post the Kihoto Hollohan judgment, the Speaker, while exercising the power to disqualify, is a Tribunal and the validity of the orders are amenable to judicial review..The Bench frowned upon the fact that the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court directly..“Despite the fact that this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to deal with disqualification cases under the writ jurisdiction, a party challenging a disqualification order is required to first approach the High Court as it would be appropriate, effective and expeditious remedy to deal with such issues. This Court would have the benefit of a considered judicial verdict from the High Court. If the parties are still aggrieved, then they may approach this Court.”.On the question of acceptance of resignation by the Speaker, it was held,.“Once it is demonstrated that a member is willing to resign out of his free will, the Speaker has no option but to accept the resignation. It is constitutionally impermissible for the Speaker to take into account any other extraneous factors while considering the resignation.”.On the interplay between disqualification, resignation, and defection, the Court held,.“…there is no doubt that the disqualification relates to the date when such act of defectiontakes place. The tendering of resignation does not have a bearing on the jurisdiction of the Speaker in this regard…. the taint of disqualification does not vaporise, on resignation, provided the defection has happened prior to the date of resignation.”.Further,.“We do not agree with the submission of the Petitioners that the disqualification proceedings cannot be continued if the resignations are tendered. Even if the resignation is tendered, the act resulting in disqualification arising prior to the resignation does not come to an end. The pending or impending disqualification action in the present case would not have been impacted by the submission of the resignation letter, considering the fact that the act of disqualification in this case have arisen prior to the members resigning from the Assembly.”.While upholding the validity of the disqualification of the 17 Karnataka MLAs, the Court held,.“Our findings on allegations of not granting specific time in all the above cases are based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. It should not be understood to mean that the Speaker could cut short the hearing period. The Speaker should give sufficient opportunity to a member before deciding a disqualification proceeding and ordinarily follow the time limit prescribed in the Rules of the Legislature.”.On the powers of the Speaker to indicate how long an MLA would stand disqualified, the Court held,.“…it is clear that the Speaker, in exercise of his powers under the Tenth Schedule, does not have the power to either indicate the period for which a person is disqualified, nor to bar someone from contesting elections. We must be careful to remember that the desirability of a particular rule or law, should not in any event be confused with the question of existence of the same, and constitutional morality should never be replaced by political morality, in deciding what the Constitution mandates.”.As a parting shot, the Court observed that there is a growing trend of the Speaker acting against the Constitutional mandate, which leads to citizenry being denied stable governments. The Bench goes on to express its regret at the manner by which constitutional functionaries have acted in the present case..“…(The) regret this bench has, is with respect to the conduct and the manner in which allthe constitutional functionaries have acted in the current scenario. Being a constitutional functionary, the Constitution requires them and their actions to uphold constitutionalism and constitutional morality. In this regard, a functionary is expected to not be vacillated by the prevailing political morality and pressures. In order to uphold the Constitution, we need to have men and women who will make a good Constitution such as ours, better.”.The resignation of 17 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) parties eventually brought down the coalition government in Karnataka. The MLAs were thereafter disqualified on grounds of defection by former Speaker, KR Ramesh..In July, petitions were filed by the 17 ex-MLAs of Karnataka, who challenged their disqualification by the Speaker of the Assembly. The Supreme Court issued notice in the petitions in September this year..The disqualified MLAs had initially prayed before the Court that they be allowed to contest in the bypolls held for 15 Assembly seats in Karnataka. Appearing on behalf of the MLAs, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the disqualification smacked of mala fides and arbitrariness. Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram, AK Ganguli, KV Viswanathan, Sajan Poovayya and V Giri also appeared for the MLAs..Appearing for the respondents, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had initially argued that the matter be heard by a Constitution Bench. It was also contended that the petitioners have no right to approach the Supreme Court in the matter. Further, since the MLAs had defected from the party, their disqualification was warranted. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan also made arguments for the respondent side..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the present Speaker, VH Kageri. Arguing on the larger question of defection, he said that the MLAs had the right to resign and that the same would not warrant disqualification. The MLAs, in such a case, would have the right to face the electorate again and cannot be barred from contesting elections for the entire life of the Assembly. He suggested that the matter be sent to the Speaker’s office for reconsideration..On November 7, the Congress party through Sibal had sought to place on record the transcript of a speech delivered by present Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa. In this speech, Yeddyurappa allegedly says that the defection of the MLAs was orchestrated at the behest of present Union Home Minister Amit Shah. While the Court did not admit the audio clip or transcript as evidence, Sibal was told that the Bench had taken note of the point he was making..[Read the judgment]
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court today upheld the disqualification of 17 Karnataka MLAs who had resigned earlier this year..However, the part of the order passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Assembly barring the former Congress and JD(S) MLAs from contesting elections for the duration of the Assembly, has been set aside..The Court observed that the Speaker does not have the power to indicate the duration for which a member may not contest elections after being disqualified or after resigning..The judgment was rendered today by a three-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, and Krishna Murari after the Court reserved orders in the case on October 25..At the outset, the Bench noted that post the Kihoto Hollohan judgment, the Speaker, while exercising the power to disqualify, is a Tribunal and the validity of the orders are amenable to judicial review..The Bench frowned upon the fact that the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court directly..“Despite the fact that this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to deal with disqualification cases under the writ jurisdiction, a party challenging a disqualification order is required to first approach the High Court as it would be appropriate, effective and expeditious remedy to deal with such issues. This Court would have the benefit of a considered judicial verdict from the High Court. If the parties are still aggrieved, then they may approach this Court.”.On the question of acceptance of resignation by the Speaker, it was held,.“Once it is demonstrated that a member is willing to resign out of his free will, the Speaker has no option but to accept the resignation. It is constitutionally impermissible for the Speaker to take into account any other extraneous factors while considering the resignation.”.On the interplay between disqualification, resignation, and defection, the Court held,.“…there is no doubt that the disqualification relates to the date when such act of defectiontakes place. The tendering of resignation does not have a bearing on the jurisdiction of the Speaker in this regard…. the taint of disqualification does not vaporise, on resignation, provided the defection has happened prior to the date of resignation.”.Further,.“We do not agree with the submission of the Petitioners that the disqualification proceedings cannot be continued if the resignations are tendered. Even if the resignation is tendered, the act resulting in disqualification arising prior to the resignation does not come to an end. The pending or impending disqualification action in the present case would not have been impacted by the submission of the resignation letter, considering the fact that the act of disqualification in this case have arisen prior to the members resigning from the Assembly.”.While upholding the validity of the disqualification of the 17 Karnataka MLAs, the Court held,.“Our findings on allegations of not granting specific time in all the above cases are based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. It should not be understood to mean that the Speaker could cut short the hearing period. The Speaker should give sufficient opportunity to a member before deciding a disqualification proceeding and ordinarily follow the time limit prescribed in the Rules of the Legislature.”.On the powers of the Speaker to indicate how long an MLA would stand disqualified, the Court held,.“…it is clear that the Speaker, in exercise of his powers under the Tenth Schedule, does not have the power to either indicate the period for which a person is disqualified, nor to bar someone from contesting elections. We must be careful to remember that the desirability of a particular rule or law, should not in any event be confused with the question of existence of the same, and constitutional morality should never be replaced by political morality, in deciding what the Constitution mandates.”.As a parting shot, the Court observed that there is a growing trend of the Speaker acting against the Constitutional mandate, which leads to citizenry being denied stable governments. The Bench goes on to express its regret at the manner by which constitutional functionaries have acted in the present case..“…(The) regret this bench has, is with respect to the conduct and the manner in which allthe constitutional functionaries have acted in the current scenario. Being a constitutional functionary, the Constitution requires them and their actions to uphold constitutionalism and constitutional morality. In this regard, a functionary is expected to not be vacillated by the prevailing political morality and pressures. In order to uphold the Constitution, we need to have men and women who will make a good Constitution such as ours, better.”.The resignation of 17 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) parties eventually brought down the coalition government in Karnataka. The MLAs were thereafter disqualified on grounds of defection by former Speaker, KR Ramesh..In July, petitions were filed by the 17 ex-MLAs of Karnataka, who challenged their disqualification by the Speaker of the Assembly. The Supreme Court issued notice in the petitions in September this year..The disqualified MLAs had initially prayed before the Court that they be allowed to contest in the bypolls held for 15 Assembly seats in Karnataka. Appearing on behalf of the MLAs, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the disqualification smacked of mala fides and arbitrariness. Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram, AK Ganguli, KV Viswanathan, Sajan Poovayya and V Giri also appeared for the MLAs..Appearing for the respondents, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had initially argued that the matter be heard by a Constitution Bench. It was also contended that the petitioners have no right to approach the Supreme Court in the matter. Further, since the MLAs had defected from the party, their disqualification was warranted. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan also made arguments for the respondent side..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the present Speaker, VH Kageri. Arguing on the larger question of defection, he said that the MLAs had the right to resign and that the same would not warrant disqualification. The MLAs, in such a case, would have the right to face the electorate again and cannot be barred from contesting elections for the entire life of the Assembly. He suggested that the matter be sent to the Speaker’s office for reconsideration..On November 7, the Congress party through Sibal had sought to place on record the transcript of a speech delivered by present Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa. In this speech, Yeddyurappa allegedly says that the defection of the MLAs was orchestrated at the behest of present Union Home Minister Amit Shah. While the Court did not admit the audio clip or transcript as evidence, Sibal was told that the Bench had taken note of the point he was making..[Read the judgment]
