Facts of the case
The current case pertains to a group of writ petitions filed by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s) of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly against the disqualification orders issued by the Speaker of the assembly. The disqualification petition was lodged with the Speaker against five MLA’s from the ruling party on 11.02.2019. While the disqualification proceedings of the aforementioned MLA’s were ongoing, nine more MLA’s tendered their resignations to the Speaker by 11.07.2019. They also sought direction from the Supreme Court for the Speaker to make a decision on the resignations, however, the Speaker did not take any action. Following this, the court issued another order instructing the Speaker to maintain the status quo on both the resignations and the disqualification petitions. Subsequent to the court’s order, disqualification petitions were filed against two additional MLA’s who did not resign. The Speaker promptly issued urgent notices regarding the pending disqualification petitions. Meanwhile, a whip was issued to all the MLA’s for a trust vote. The petitioners opted not to attend the assembly session. As a result, the INC-JDS government failed to secure a majority in the trust vote, leading to the Speaker rejecting all resignations and disqualifying the petitioners from the 15th Legislative Assembly term.
Issues Raised
1. Whether the disqualification of elected representatives of the assembly based on grounds of defection as outlined in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution is valid.
2. Whether the 91st Amendment does not empower the speaker to prevent members from contesting elections.
Contentions
The petitioners contested the Speaker’s rejection of their resignation and disqualification orders. They argued that their resignation from the House should not be equated with resignation from the party. The petitioners claimed that the Speaker exceeded their constitutional duty by rejecting the resignations. Additionally, they asserted that once the resignations were validly tendered, there was no basis for disqualifying a member. The petitioners also disputed the “emergent” notice issued by the Speaker, alleging that it violated principles of natural justice. Finally, they submitted that even if the disqualification is deemed valid in law, their right to contest upcoming elections should not be revoked. In support of their argument, the petitioners referenced a court order that granted them the freedom to choose whether or not to participate in the ongoing proceedings of the house.
The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the issue pertains to allegations of statutory rights rather than fundamental rights. In terms of the Speaker’s exercise of authority, it was argued that the Speaker carries out an adjudicatory role in such cases, with the Courts having a restricted scope for interference. Additionally, it was put forth that the breach of party whip results in the voluntary resignation of the party members, thereby bringing the MLAs under the purview of the Tenth Schedule.
Rationale
The order of disqualification of the 17 dissident MLAs by the speaker of the Karnataka legislative assembly was upheld by a 3-judge bench consisting of Justice N.V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, and Krishna Murari. The reasoning behind the decision was that while the members would be disqualified, they could still participate in elections until the current assembly term ends. Consequently, the disqualified members are allowed to contest in the by-elections. The petitioners contended that there was a clear injustice and a violation of natural justice, as the speaker claimed the resignations were voluntary and only a 3-day notice was given to the petitioners under rule 7(3)(b) of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Grounds of Defection) Rules, 1986. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and stated that they cannot be violated, even though there may be exceptions. The court also clarified that the speaker of the assembly made an error and only the disqualification can be pursued, not all the orders in their entirety. The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that the speaker’s orders were malicious and ruled that the speaker based his decision on the evidence and procedures outlined in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. The court highlighted that the speaker does not have the authority to disqualify members of the assembly until the end of the term in 2023, but disqualified members can face certain sanctions as outlined in the 10th Schedule under articles 164(1B), 361 B, 75(1B) of the constitution, which prohibit holding any remunerative posts from the date of disqualification.
The court reaffirmed the principles established by the 91st Amendment. The judges concurred on the relevance of the petition and emphasized the need to follow the court hierarchy, approaching the high court first under Article 226 of the constitution. The petition under Article 32 was deemed maintainable by the court as a special case. The next issue pertained to the judicial review of the Speaker’s acceptance or rejection of the resignation. It was determined that the Speaker’s discretion in rejecting the resignation is limited. Rejection is only permissible if the resignation was “not voluntary or genuine,” and Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution does not authorize the Speaker to inquire into the motive of the resignation. Regarding disqualification proceedings following resignation, it was ruled that the act of resignation does not nullify ongoing disqualification proceedings. Additionally, the court upheld the Speaker’s exercise of powers under the Tenth Schedule in relation to disqualification orders. However, it was also noted that the Tenth Schedule does not specify the duration of disqualification, therefore the Speaker cannot impose a time period or bar disqualified members from contesting elections if they are otherwise eligible. The court found part of the challenged order to be ultra vires.
Defects of Law
1. Uncertainty Surrounding the Speaker’s Role
The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly faces challenges in balancing their roles as a neutral arbiter and a member of a political party, leading to possible bias. The Speaker’s actions were viewed as biased, sparking concerns about the necessity of impartiality when handling defection cases.
2. Absence of Definitive Criteria for Resignation vs. Disqualification
The Tenth Schedule lacks specific criteria for distinguishing between voluntary resignations and acts of defection. The Speaker’s decision to disqualify MLAs who resigned voluntarily was criticized as arbitrary and potentially unconstitutional.
3. Decision-Making Delay
The Tenth Schedule lacks a specified time frame for the Speaker to make decisions regarding resignations or disqualifications. The delay in accepting MLA resignations gave the Speaker the opportunity to manipulate the timing of disqualifications, affecting government stability and MLA rights.
4. Constraints on Judicial Review
Initially, the Tenth Schedule granted the Speaker final decision-making authority without the possibility of judicial review, except under limited circumstances. This raised concerns about the unchecked power of the Speaker, potentially leading to misuse. While the Supreme Court has allowed for judicial review, the scope and grounds for such review remain contentious.
5. Disqualification Duration
The Tenth Schedule lacks clarity on the duration of disqualification, resulting in differing interpretations. The Speaker’s decision to disqualify the MLAs for the remainder of the Assembly’s term was contested, and the Supreme Court ruled that the disqualification should only last until the date of the next election, emphasizing the necessity for clearer guidelines.
6. Natural Justice and Fairness
The Tenth Schedule does not explicitly protect the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing. In this instance, the disqualified MLAs contended that they were not afforded a fair chance to present their case, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Inference
The recent ruling outlined a thorough analysis of the 10th Schedule and set a precedent for handling any future defections. Defection has been a long-standing issue in India, with notable cases like that of Gaya Lal. The 10th Schedule was introduced to curb political defection and disqualify members who go against party lines or voting procedures. This landmark decision reshaped the role of the speaker in managing defections and clarified that resignation is not a condition for disqualification, as some members had previously exploited. The court emphasized that the speaker’s power is discretionary and quasi-judicial, making it subject to judicial review under Article 137 of the constitution. The recent judgment has highlighted the deficiencies of the defection and its consequences. The reasoning behind the judgment has also been applied to understand the role of the speaker and the anti-defection law in the Madhya Pradesh defection case. The pivotal ruling serves as the foundation upon which all defection cases will be assessed. It established the guidelines of an outdated amendment that contained certain gaps. This allowed for loopholes for both the members and the speaker. The recent ruling addressed such inconsistencies. It also emphasized that speakers must remain unbiased and impartial, while members should refrain from defection and adhere to the lawful constitutional directive.
Karri Sahiti Ananya Reddy,
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.