Karnataka political crisis reaches the High Court: Sorabjee for the CM, PP Rao and K.G. Raghavan for dissident MLAs

Bar & Bench News Network

Oct 12, 2010

The ongoing political drama that is taking place in full public view in Karnataka has now reached the Karnataka High Court. The Vacation Bench of the HC will decide whether the Speaker was right in disqualifying the rebel MLAs from the ruling party, BJP and whether these MLAs are guilty under the provisions of the Anti-Defection Act.

On Monday , the Karnataka Chief Minister, B.S. Yeddyurappa faced a trust vote to prove his party’s continuing majority after 11 rebel MLAs from the party and 5 independent MLAs showed signs of reaching out to the opposition parties in the state.

 

Before the trust vote could begin, Speaker K.G. Bopaiah dismissed the 16 rebel MLAs from the Karnataka Assembly under the Anti-Defection Act in response to Yeddyurappa's petition. Soon after the floor test was won by the CM, Governor of the State, H.R. Bhardwaj stated that the disqualification of the MLAs was illegal and that President’s Rule be imposed in the state.

 

The 16 MLAs then approached the High Court where a specially constituted Bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Kehar and Justice N. Kumar, heard their petition. The CM was represented by former Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee who said there was no violation as far as following principles of natural justice were concerned, as the MLAs had been duly heard by the Speaker before the decision was taken.

 

Senior Counsel P.P. Rao represented the 11 disqualified BJP MLAs and argued before the Bench that the action was a clear abuse of power. "These MLAs never said that they would leave the party. They were only expressing lack of confidence in the leadership of CM B.S. Yeddyurappa owing to corruption, favouritism and nepotism. Rao as quoted by the media added, “Since their voice was never heard in the party forum, they went to the Governor with a representation. Can it be called defection? There is no mention of these MLAs leaving the party in the representation given to the governor on October 6. There is no crossing floor or dal-badal as mentioned in the schedule 10 (disqualification on grounds of defection) to invite such an order."

 

A separate petition has been filed before the Bench by the independent MLAs, who are being represented by Senior Counsel K.G. Raghavan of Dua Associates.

 

The Bench while hearing the petitions asked, "We want to know how the Anti-Defection law is invoked. It is purely a question of law now.” The Tenth Schedule — popularly known as the Anti-Defection Act — was included in the Constitution in 1985 by the Rajiv Gandhi ministry and sets the provisions for disqualification of elected members on the grounds of defection to another political party. The hearing was adjourned with the case being taken up again today while various political parties of the state scramble to prove their majority in the state.

 

 

 

 

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(11)
  • 1. "political horse trading should be stopped. A strong law to deal with such defected representatives, who cheated the elected people, should be enacted. Pople should no longer be gadhas. These MsLA should know this. ". CNS Nair, (Unknown City?) Guwahati
  • 2. "Governor should have given sufficient time to the Chief Minister Mr.Yedayurappa because under anti-defection law itself, speaker has to give a minimum of seven days notice, whereas the Governor asked to prove the majority on or before 12th Oct.2010 which is less than 7 days, hence Speaker's action in disqualifying the dissenting 11 MLAs of BJP and 5 Independents who came to the Legislative Assembly with the Support of BJP and enjoyed the ministership for the past 29 months, clearly showed by their action that they are going to vote against the Government which is the mandate of the people. While mandate of the people of Karnataka State is so, Speaker's action in disqualifying the Dissident MLAs is absolutely correct both on the question of law and on the question of facts.Governor is the Head of the State no doubt, but he can not dictate terms to the manner in which an Assembly proceedings be carried out, he simply asked to prove the majority and he has not mentioned it is by show of hands or voice vote or poll. Governor is not the mouth piece of Ruling party at the Centre, he should be neutral so also the Speaker.Considering all the above, I am of the opinion let the present Govt. shall continue and complete its whole term, and in the event of any President Rule is imposed by invoking Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, in the General Assembly elections, it would pave the way for the BJP to get 2/3rd majority.Submitted for kind perusal and these are only my personal views and opinion and not to hurt any one individual or party or official please (whether in Legislative, Executive or Judiciary).Regards". J. Narayanan, Chennai
  • 3. "Soli Sorabjee is not a novice. He must have taken the brief after weighing the pros and cons of the given situation. But this wd prove to be a very tricky case for him. His client have no merit in their case. Technically, it is a lost case. P.P.Rao, Sr. Advocate wd come out winner. Justice Kehar is sure to enjoy every moment of it. He loves being judge of such arguments. But it would not be a tough decision for him. But he would love to keep it pending. Political compulsions.". Sudhir Sachdeva, (Unknown City?)
  • 4. "frankly speaking from day one govrner hr barathwaj not acting like nutral person he is supporting oppssion and his behavior is also not good he is always giving statments in media more ever he told he is proud to be congress while he is in responcible position he act like a governor not like oppostion leader he is not a suitable for governor he shoud contest elections behalf of congress. more over the pepoles govt should stay in karnataka not president rule frist remove this bad governer". Delhi,
  • 5. "Disqualification before voting? Any thoughts on Article 193!!". Sumanth, Hyderabad
  • 6. "Speaker's action of disqualifying 16 MLA's from their seat in the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly just prior to the time of no confidence motion which took place yesterday (11-10-2010) and all MLA's are earlier the supporters to the ruling party in the State of karnataka and accordingly the Democratic Government was established under the leadership of Shri B.S. Yediyurappa the leader of the BJP IN the Karnataka State. Now the descendant MLA's(11 MLA's from Ruling party and 5 other/independents) today approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under the constitutional laws of the land to get further relief / protection from the actions of the Hon'ble Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the day was closed without any further conclusion that whether the descendant MLA's will safeguard from the actions of the Speaker? Wait and See?". Venkatasubbaiah Kadapa, Bangalore
  • 7. "The decision by the speaker to disqualifying the 16 MLA's is technically and legally correct.The Anti-defection rule is meant to provide this kind of punishment for switchover for shift the power for personal benifits. the intersting point here is the BJP MLA's had not gone to the BJP Leadership for their grievences, but to H D Kumarswamy, which is a sure case of defection. Independent MLA's too had been part of the govt for more than 2 years as ministers or otherwise too. they were shifting loyalities in order to shift power center from BJP to JD-S & Cong combined.This again is a clear representation of defection. The physical holdup of these 16 MLA's for more than 4 days befor the 1st trust vote is a clear indication of horse trading. The timing of usage of the anti defection law is a prerogative of the Honorable speaker. The bigger irony is the mastermind of all these developments Mr.HDK and family is the biggest beneficiary as theses were being done to make his elder broter Mr.Revanna and himself a union minister being bartered with Mr.Siddramaih once bitter foe( they have used all possible disgraced words humanly possible against each other) as CM. Over all this is a clear case of Defectionin all understandings. Going one step forward I would be happy if these type of switch overs of MLA's for power grabbing should be severly punished like " barr them from contesting any election hereafter" as the purpose of electing them is defeated. ". Naveen Kumar K C, Bangalore
  • 8. "Mr. Bharadwaj knows all the legal consequences arising out of kumarswamy in karnataka, hence forth he has taken a decission to recal cm for 2nd vote confidence, otherwise the centre would have been recalled governor for improper instruction misleaded to people. centr is know not interested forming govt with jds but idiotic siddaramaih is not leaving kuamraswamy, kumarasweamy by hook or crook is intended to destabilize elected govt by illegal way, hence i request to HC not relieve their disqualification let them learn a lesson and kumarswamy should suffer like anything for this inhuman mistake done by father and son.". DEVARAJA KALLUSHETTY HALLY (HASSAN DIST), Bangalore
  • 9. "The Speaker should have follow the procedure which is mentioned in the said law. Only two days for reply to anti defection notice aganist seven days which is mandatory and disqualifying the MLA's before two hours of trust vote appears to be the Hon'ble Speaker had taken the decission under the influence of BJP Government. And disqualifying of the Indipendnt MLA's were made keeping in mind of numbers. Any Law's should not be a weapon of gain the situations.". Ravi G R, Bangalore
  • 10. "Now a days our MLAs making money like anything, be'cose of political power the going to fight like street dogs ". SN Reddy, Bangalore
  • 11. ""Justice Will Make the God & It will Balance Both the Sides"Because Rahul & Sonia are not Lucky To Rule the Land Of Aum Tatsat. Let Yeddy to continue as a CM For his full tenure. "He Can't" already it has been Proved already Damn Sure"Whoever will Say Sonia & Rahul Gandhi Are Lucky to rule the land of Aum Tatsat Obviously they belongs to Weak Mental Attitude" Its Not Any Imagination Its True True True"". Anonymous, (Unknown City)
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the  comments (2)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.