The Congress has petitioned Governor E. S. L. Narasimhan, seeking recommendation of dismissal of the TRS government as Chief Minister K. Chandrasekar Rao had violated Schedule III of the Constitution and was encouraging defections in disregard of Schedule X of the Constitution.
A delegation of the Congress led by former Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily urged the Governor to send the representation to the President of India and Union Ministry to impose President’s rule by invoking Article 356 of the Constitution. The memorandum alleged that the Chief Minister was encouraging defections by calling the MLAs to his camp office and official residence and taking them into the TRS.
‘What the law says’
The memorandum said the Tenth Schedule was incorporated in the Constitution in 1985 and it lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding Officer of a legislature based on a petition by any other member of the House. A legislator is deemed to have defected if he/she either voluntarily gives up membership of the party or disobeys directives of the party leadership on a vote.
The law provides for a member to be disqualified if he/she ‘voluntarily gives up membership’. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted that in the absence of a formal resignation by the member, the giving up of membership can be inferred by his/her conduct. In other judgments, members who have publicly expressed opposition to their party or support for another party were deemed to have resigned.
The memorandum further said that Article 154 of the Constitution mandates that executive power of the State was vested in the Governor and, therefore, propriety demands that a constitutional authority like Governor, who not only owes a duty but also responsibility to the Constitution, has to refer this application forthwith, without adopting any dilatory tactics to favour the ruling party, to the President of India and Union Ministry to impose President’s rule by invoking Article 356 of the Constitution.
It further said that any deviation from the constitutional duty and responsibility by any constitutional authority was amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court as held in the S. R. Bommai case.