[dropcap]I[/dropcap]Nthe ongoing political crisis in Karnataka that has reached at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court, the court today refrained from issuing any direction to the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, leaving it to him to take a call on the resignation of 15 rebel Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs).
“The Speaker may decide on the resignations within such time frame, as he may consider appropriate,” a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said.
They ordered that the decision of the Speaker on the resignations, as and when passed, be placed before the court.
The judges at the same time also made it clear that until further orders, the 15 MLAs ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option be given to them to either attend or opt-out of the proceedings.
Incidentally, the floor test is scheduled to take place in the Karnataka Assembly tomorrow.
Appearing for the 15 rebel MLAs who had tendered their resignations to the Speaker, and wanted them to be accepted by him, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi submitted that the Speaker should be held liable for contempt if he did not act on the resignations. The Speaker was bound to comply with the court’s order, Rohtagi said.
On the other side, appearing for the Speaker, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the Speaker first had to decide the disqualification proceedings. He added that the court could not direct the Speaker to decide on the disqualification in a particular manner and within a time frame. He also questioned the maintainability of the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since no fundamental rights of the petitioners (15 rebel MLAs) under Part III of the Constitution had been violated.
Appearing for the Chief Minister of Karnataka H. D. Kumaraswamy, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan submitted that the petition had not contained any averment justifying the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. “What do averments made in the petition, such as administration has come to standstill, and delay on the part of Speaker is mala fide, have to do with Article 32 of the Constitution under which the petition has been filed?” Dhavan asked.
Dhavan also added that the Speaker had to conduct an enquiry to ascertain that the resignations were genuine and voluntary. The order by the court on July 11, 2019 could not have been passed on the basis of a petition filed by rebel MLAs. The Speaker was doing his duty. He should have received adequate time to make a decision, Dhavan said.
The Supreme Court had on July 11, 2019 directed the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly KR Ramesh Kumar to decide on the resignations tendered by the rebel MLAs forthwith. The Speaker, however, moved the apex court later in the day seeking a recall of the order as it had been passed ex-parte.
