Karnataka State Assembly Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar urgently asked the Supreme Court to recall its Thursday order asking him to meet 10 Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) MLAs at 6 p.m. and decide on their resignation “forthwith or in the course of the remaining part of the day”.
The Speaker said the Supreme Court cannot ask him to decide on the issue of resignation of legislators in a particular manner. Mr. Kumar said the order also hinders his inquiry into the MLAs under the anti-defection law.
“No direction is contemplated against the Speaker to take a decision under Article 190 (vacation of seat by a legislator) in a particular manner. The order would also impede the duties of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution,” the Speaker submitted.
The Speaker said the MLAs had suppressed the fact that disqualification proceedings was pending against them since February 11. The Tenth Schedule or anti-defection law casts a mandatory duty on the Speaker to decide on applications for disqualification. Thus, Speaker has to first inquire into whether the 10 MLAs concerned had incurred any reason for disqualification prior to the submission of their resignation letter on July 6.
“The issue of disqualification needs to be decided in accordance with law which cannot be completed by today,” the Speaker said.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had passed the order on Thursday morning without hearing the side of the Speaker. Mr. Kumar, in his six-page application, said he happened to hear about the apex court order through the electronic media.
Acting quickly, the Speaker, through senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Devadatt Kamat, made an urgent mention in the post-lunch session of the court, requesting the CJI to hear the application for recall of the order.
The CJI said the application would be heard on July 12 along with the petition of the 10 MLAs. The court, in the morning, had fixed the July 12 hearing in order to be apprised of the Speaker's decision on the resignations.
The Speaker reminded the Supreme Court that he has certain constitutional duties to comply with while examining resignation of MLAs.
“The proviso to Article 190(1)(b) specifically contemplates an enquiry for ascertaining whether the resignation is voluntary and genuine. It is only after such enquiry/process that the satisfaction of the Speaker can be reached,” the Speaker said.
The Speaker pointed out that it is, under the 33rd Constitutional Amendment of 1974, entirely left to his discretion to make an inquiry and decide whether or not a resignation is voluntary, genuine or not.
“Several of the resignations are not in accordance with Rule 202 of the Rules and Procedure of Conduct of Business in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. It is thus respectfully submitted that the enquiry so contemplated cannot be completed today itself,” the Speaker told the apex court.
Finally, the Speaker said the legal consequence of a disqualification and that of resignation are entirely separate and distinct.
“Under Article 164(1)(B) and 361(B) of the Constitution, an MLA disqualified under the Tenth Schedule cannot be inducted as a minister or appointed on a remunerative post unless and until he/she is re-elected,” the application said.
Resignation would mean they can just change party and get perks. Disqualification means they have to get re-elected, Mr. Singhvi said.