The ongoing political crisis in Karnataka will have to continue for a further period of time as the Karnataka High Court has delivered a split verdict in the disqualification of the BJP and independent MLAs.

A Vacation Bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Kehar and consisting of Justice N. Kumar delivered a 92-page judgment involving the disqualification of 11 dissident MLAs. The case will now be heard by a third judge on October 20. On the petition involving the dismissal of the 5 independent MLAs, the Bench said, “We are of the view it should go to some other bench. We will post it before some other bench.” That case will be heard next on November 2.

On October 11, 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.

The Bench discussed these four issues:

1)    Violation of Rules of 10^th Schedule of the Constitution - Justice Kehar in his order stated that the rules are only directory in nature and since no prejudice was caused to the petitioners, as they had exhaustively defended themselves, by not following the rules exactly, there is no violation of the rules.

2)    Violation of natural justice - Both the judges held that the principles of natural justice had been followed. The dissident MLAs had been issued a show-cause notice as to why they must not be disqualifies and their defenses had been heard before the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly.

3)    Para 2(1) (a) of the Anti-Defection Act regarding disqualification of an MLA (when he voluntarily gives up his member of his party or if he votes or abstains from voting contrary to any direction issue by his party) - This was the only contention where the two judges gave differing verdicts. Justice Kehar held that the letter given to the Governor by the MLAs clearly demonstrated their intention to give up membership to their party. Also that in the letter to the Governor, where the MLAs had said a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution is the exact same line used to describe Article 356 which states the provisions in case of failure on constitutional machinery of the State clearly demonstrating their intentions. Justice Kehar also went on to state that some of the MLAs were ministers in Yeddyurappa’s cabinet even when they sent the letter to the Governor and should have resigned from their post before seeking a recourse. These actions by the MLAs clearly demonstrate their intention to voluntarily give up their membership to the BJP and hence their disqualification is valid.

Justice Kumar deferred from Justice Kehar’s opinion and stated that “since some of the dissident MLAs were ministers of the Chief Minister’s cabinet, they were insiders who had tried to fight corruption, nepotism etc as alleged by them in their letter to the Governor, and since their efforts had not yielded results, they approached the Governor. Justice Kumar also goes on to say that the dissident MLAs want to fight against social evils and that the procedures stated under the 10^th Schedule had been enacted to arrest the evils of political defection due to the lure of office and that this wasn’t the main purpose of the 10^th Schedule?”

4)    Mala fides committed by the Speaker - Justice Kehar held that the allegations against the Speaker are vague and do not consider any specific details. Justice Kumar on the other hand said “he impugned order passed by the Speaker is in violation of constitutional mandate, as well suffer from perversity and therefore, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside”.

Speaking to the media, Satyapal Jain, Senior Counsel who appeared for the Chief Minister, said, “Only on the question of disqualification of 11 BJP MLAs as to the question whether their conduct in approaching the Governor against the chief minister amounted to leaving their political party the bench differed. A third judge will decide.”

Senior Counsel P.P. Rao represented the 11 disqualified MLAs while Senior Counsel K.G. Raghavan of Dua Associates represented the 5 independent MLAs. Senior Advocates Soli Sorabjee, KN Bhat and Satyapal Jain represented the Chief Minister and the Speaker.

Click here for a copy of Justice Kehar’s judgement and Justice Kumar’s judgment.