Can Resignation Avoid Disqualification? Rohatgi, Singhvi & Dhavan Battle It Out In Karnataka MLAs Case [Court Room Exchange]

"Pendency of a disqualification is not a bar to the Speaker to act on resignation. The procedure, the Articles for the two are completely different. The roles of the Speaker in disqualification and in resignation under 190 are different. And the decision is subject to Your Lordships' jurisdiction", began Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi for the rebel MLAs."All 10 of the MLAs had resigned on July 6 under their own hand. The resignation was stated in 2 lines. Out of the 10, disqualifications were pending against 2 of them, the petitions having been filed on February 11. One of these 2, Umesh Jadhav, who had resigned pending the disqualification, his resignation having been submitted on March 4, the same was accepted on April 1...and the disqualifications against the remaining 8 were moved on July 10...", he continued."By virtue of Your Lordships' order, these 10 people appeared before the Speaker on July 11 in the evening and gave fresh resignation which was nothing but just a reiteration of the earlier resignation...of the 5 MLAs now seeking impleadment, 3 resigned on July 10, 1 on July 1 and 1 on July 6...""Any disqualification petitions pending against these 5?", asked Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Mr. Rohatgi replied that the petitions were filed on July 10."For 2, the disqualification is pending since February. For one Jadhav, the Speaker accepted the resignation despite the pendency of the disqualification. He didn't think it was a bar then. Now he is saying 'I will decide the resignations in the shortest possible time. I will also decide the disqualification petitions. But the latter is a mean trial- natural justice has to be followed, show-cause notice is to be issues, evidence has to be examined, it has to be ascertained if the member is crossing over to another party. It is an adversarial lis as two parties are fighting...But resignation, once moved, notwithstanding the disqualification petition, has to be decided in its own sphere of 190. The only parameter is that the resignations are genuine, voluntary and without any coercion...this is not a case where the MLAs were locked up in a room with a gun to their temple and asked to resign. Here, the man appears before you twice and says he wants to resign- he says so in the media and before the SC! No other inquiry is needed here. The inquiry cannot be prolonged or mixed with disqualification . And I am not saying 'please quash my disqualification petition'. I am only saying that 'I don't want to be a MLA and attend the House...Don't force me to discharge my duties! I do't want to defect; I just want to go back to the public and contest elections again or maybe even just give up!...But the Speaker is coercing me to sit in a room and vote in a particular manner...'...It is my right, my profession, my vocation to do what I want to under 190. The Speaker is infringing my right...Besides, the Speaker has now called for the trust vote the day after tomorrow. Your Lordships had given us protection, and now the idea is that there will be a fresh whip to ask these 15 to attend and vote. And the argument will be that the SC's order was confined to the previous whip. That is the game. The government knows that it is in minority, and that it about to come down by 15 more people", argued Mr. Rohatgi."The Proviso to 190(3) was added as a security to the MLA, not as anything against him. It is beneficial to the MLA who is coerced to do something. 191 is on disqualification. (a) to (e) are the grounds in 191(1) which are not under the Speaker but referred to the Governor who is to act as per the opinion of the EC. 191(2) takes you to the 10th Schedule which the Speaker decides. 191(2) has nothing to do with resignation", submitted the Senior Advocate.Indicating Rule 202 of the Karnataka Assembly Rules on Vacation and Resignation, he contended that if the Speaker has no further information, he has to accept the resignations immediately and that he cannot have an inquiry. "What are the grounds in the disqualification petition?", asked the Chief Justice. "Not acting in concert with the party. Not attending meetings outside of the House. Not a disciplined member of the party", responded Mr. Rohatgi. "Are the grounds identical in all?", the Chief Justice wanted to know- "Slightly different but broadly the same"Next, the Senior Counsel discussed the grounds for disqualification on defection as in Paragraph 2 of the 10th Schedule- "It is not as if a member of the opposition party came and stood with you on a public platform and you said 'vote for him'. That would be a clear indication of the intention to be somewhere else. They are saying the MLAs are trying to destabilize the government in collusion with the BJP, that the resignation is without reason. They have no real material. The reasons are being attributed. It is only a ploy to scuttle the resignations and have the Speaker decide them along with the disqualifications""Then there is Article 361B which has no bearing on our ...

Can Resignation Avoid Disqualification? Rohatgi, Singhvi & Dhavan Battle It Out In Karnataka MLAs Case [Court Room Exchange]

Mehal Jain

Tags