Disqualification of Karnataka MLAs: Live Updates from the Supreme Court

The hearing in the plea recently filed by 17 MLAs from Karnataka challenging their disqualification from the state assembly is presently underway before the Supreme Court of India..The Supreme Court issued notice in the petitions in September this year. The hearing in the matter is presently ongoing before a Bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari..Live updates from today’s hearing follow:.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi making submissions on behalf of the disqualified MLAs.We are only concerned now about judicial review of Speaker’s decision. Since case was filed before Speaker had decided, there was other issues as well. Those issues which had arisen before the Speaker took his decision have become academic now, Rohatgi.A member of house has an indefeasible right to resign. The only excpetion to it is that there should be no coercion, no gun to his temple, Rohatgi.The disqualification smacks of malafides, arbitrariness and in case violates the rule of seven days period to be allowed for reply, Rohatgi.Even if the disqualification was valid, it will come to an end on fresh elections if I wish to contest. If I dont wish to contest, the disqualification will go on till 2023, Rohatgi.Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan pressing that case involves Constitutional interpretation.Bench inclined to hear arguments on merits, asks Rohatgi to continue.Rohatgi brushing aside allegations of disqualified MLAs taking chartered flights to Mumbai etc.“How are these relevant? In any case, those flights were taken after the resignation“, says Rohatgi.If a man has the guts to resign and go back to the electorate, then he should be allowed to, Rohatgi.Motive of resignation not relevant as long as resignation is voluntary, Rohatgi.Seven days period for giving reply is mandatory. If not mandatory, it is at least salutary, Rohatgi.Rohatgi concludes his arguments by saying that Article 32 petition will lie.Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram now commences his arguments..There is a fundamental difference between a man who is disqualified and a man who has resigned, Sundaram.Sundaram citing Rules of Karnataka Assembly.A long winded inquiry under the Rules into the resignation is only for Speaker to find out voluntariness of the resignation, Sundaram.Events which took place after resignation should not be taken into account, Sundaram.Politics is my profession. Speaker’s order effectively blacklists me from taking up my calling. It is not a mere disqualification but an imposition of punishment, Sundaram.Sundaram concludes submissions..Senior Advocate AK Ganguli makes arguments. .Thereafter, Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan commences arguments. .Whole purpose of anti-defection is to penalise a person to give up membership of house so as to prevent the person from switching loyalty. In our case, we have given up membership of house voluntarily, Viswanathan.If the Speaker feels my resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he has to tell me the reasons for the same. He has not done that, Viswanathan.Bench rises for the day..In July this year, petitions were filed by 17 ex-MLAs of Karnataka challenging their disqualification by the previous Speaker of the Assembly. The resignation of the 17 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) parties eventually brought down the HD Kumaraswamy-led regime in Karnataka in July this year. They were thereafter disqualified on grounds of defection by former Speaker, KR Ramesh..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.