Tag: Karnataka assembly

Disqualified Karnataka MLAs Shouldn’t Be Surprised They Can’t Contest By-Polls

If a disqualified MLA is allowed to contest the seat which s/he vacated because of defection, it will not only be unethical but a mockery of the anti-defection law.

“Dhobi ka kutta: Na ghar ka, na ghat ka.
The washerman’s dog roams between the house and the ghat, but belongs to neither.”
∼ An Urdu maxim

The honourable MLAs of Karnataka were first lured to defect, then induced to resign. By the time they resigned, petitions for their disqualification had been filed. It was clear that the resignations were a strategy to dislodge the government – and hence not genuine. An induced resignation cannot be voluntary.

Ramesh Kumar, as the speaker of the Karnataka assembly, showed how a constitutional authority should act. He adjudicated the complaints as per the constitutional norms. The chronology of events Kumar recorded in his 12-page order reflect the fact that the MLAs’ resignations were not ‘genuine’ or ‘voluntary’, while their statements proved that they had ‘voluntarily’ deserted their original parties.

Whether their resignations are accepted or they are disqualified, the impact may appear to be the same – their seats are vacated. But there is also a substantive difference: the disqualified member cannot contest by-elections and re-enter the house.

The Congress speaker’s order was appreciated by both the fallen Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) coalition and resurrected Bharatiya Janara Party government. Yedyurappa does not need to bother about commitments made, if any, either by him or his party to the rebel ex-legislators.

The tenth schedule

The Constitution (Fifty Second Amendment) Act, 1985 inserted the tenth schedule in our constitution to curb defections, a cancer that is eating away at our democracy and reducing the rule book to nothing but a ruler’s handbook. This law was criticised for facilitating the defection of two-thirds of a party’s legislators by “merging” with another party, and of one-third of a party’s legislators by “splitting” from the original party.

Also read: India’s Politicians Have Turned the Anti-Defection Law on Its Head

An isolated legislator will lose his or her seat after defecting, but a larger group of legislators enjoy immunity under the guise of split or merger. Besides encouraging wholesale horse trading, this law has proved ineffective because it allows defectors to be awarded with highly remunerative public positions like chairman of a corporation under the government, equivalent to cabinet berth in rank and privileges.

The anti-defection law suffers from inherent defects like the lack of a timeframe for speakers and chairpersons to decide on complaints, which is exploited by ruling parties to destroy other parties.

Defects exposed

Three major committees recommended the deletion of the clause legitimising “splits”, though they supported the “merger” clause.

The Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms in May 1990, the Law Commission of India report on ‘Reform of Electoral Laws‘ in 1999 and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in March 2002 strongly recommended the deletion of the split provision. On disqualification as punishment, these committees recommended, “…a defector should be penalised for his action by debarring him from holding any public office as a Minister or any other remunerative political post for at least the duration of the remaining term of the existing Legislature or until, the next fresh elections whichever is earlier” (NCRWC report).

Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s National Democratic Alliance government enacted the 91st amendment in 2003, incorporating these recommendations. It has very significant provisions: first, it limits the strength of ministers to avoid jumbo cabinets by distributing cabinet berths to too many loyalists; second, it deletes the “split” exemption (defection by one-third members of the legislature party). Two more clauses were inserted in Articles 164 and 361:

“(1-B) A member of Legislative Assembly of a State or either House of the Legislature of a State having Legislative Council belonging to any political party who is disqualified for being a member of that House under paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a Minister under clause (1) for duration of the period commencing from the date of his disqualification till the date on which the term of his office as such member would expire or where he contests any election to the Legislative Assembly of a State or either House of the Legislature of a State having Legislative Council, as the case may be, before the expiry of such period, till the date on which he is declared elected, whichever is earlier.

361B. ….. shall also be disqualified to hold any remunerative political post for duration of the period commencing from the date of his disqualification till the date on which the term of his office as such member would expire or till the date on which he contests an election to a House and is declared elected, whichever is earlier.”

Section 361B is also coached in similar terms to prohibit disqualified members from securing ministerial posts or corporation chairpersonships. It is clear now that unless there is a mid-term poll for the legislature, the disqualified member cannot contest before the term’s expiry\.

Karnataka speaker’s order

The former Karnataka speaker left no ambiguity in his verdict, saying that a legislator of a constituency has “incurred disqualification for being a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India” and “cease to be the member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly with immediate effect from the date i.e., 25.7.2029 till the expiry of the term of this 15th Legislative Assembly”.

Also read: Karnataka Offers Lesson in Subversion of Democracy

The disqualification clause in paragraph 2 of the tenth schedule says, “…a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House”. Articles 83 and 172 of the constitution say the duration of the House is five years. The expression “disqualified for being a member of the House” should be properly understood as saying that the member is not only sent out of the House, but also not allowed to re-enter till the end of its term.

If a disqualified MLA is allowed to contest the seat which s/he vacated because of defection, it will not only be unethical but a mockery of the anti-defection law. As per the tenth schedule, the disqualified Karnataka MLAs have no case at all. The legislators should have studied this legal position before succumbing to inducements or pressures and deserting their original parties. Now, they are ‘na Congress-JD(S) ka, na BJP ka’.

M. Sridhar Acharyulu is a professor of constitutional law at Bennett University and formerly a central information commissioner, and Vikas Bansode is an advocate in the Supreme Court and former advisor to the governor of Karnataka.

Karnataka: Governor Accepts Kumaraswamy’s Resignation; BJP Hails ‘Victory of Democracy’

The Congress-JD(S) coalition could muster only 99 votes in the trust vote, while 105 MLAs voted against it.

New Delhi: The drama of the Karnataka political crisis culminated on Tuesday, with the Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) coalition failing to pass the trust vote. On the fourth day of discussion over the motion of condifence, the vote was finally held and the coalition could muster only 99 votes, while 105 votes were polled against it.

Chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy missed the 6 pm deadline set for the floor test by speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar to prove majority in the house. The JD(S) chief could not complete his reply to the motion, but voting began at around 7:30 pm.

After Kumaraswamy submitted his resignation to governor Vajubhai Vala, it was accepted. Until alternative arrangements are made, he was asked to continue as caretaker chief minister.

Governor Vajubhai Vala accepted the resignation. Photo: Social media

Meanwhile, the BJP will decide its future course of action during the party’s legislature meeting on Wednesday.

After the votes were announced, the BJP legislators began celebrating. The BJP called the coalition’s failure to pass the trust vote “the end of an era of corrupt & unholy alliance”. The party also promised a “stable and able governance” to the people of Karnataka.

The part’s state chief B.S. Yeddyurappa termed the development a “victory of democracy”.

BSP chief Mayawati has ordered the immediate suspension of its Karnataka MLA N. Mahesh, who abstained from the trust vote and violated party directions.

Rahul Gandhi has called it a win for greed and a loss for democracy.

Earlier, the speaker had said that he will not vote during the floor test, and would only do so in the event of a tie. Speaker Ramesh Kumar also apologised for “dragging” the trust vote, saying it was not his intention to do so.

During his reply, CM Kumaraswamy claimed that his government has delivered on all its promises. He said that work was based on “intuition, not superstition”.

‘BJP gained power through backdoor’

Former Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah on Tuesday flayed the BJP for gaining access to power through the “backdoor” and said an “unethical, illegal and anti-constitutional government” was coming to power in Karnataka.

“The BJP was coming to power through the backdoor. They (BJP) have no faith in democracy. They allowed defection, horse-trading and lured the MLAs,” Siddaramaiah told reporters after the Congress-JD(S) coalition government lost the trust vote.

Stating that the coalition government was formed according to constitutional provisions, the Congress leader alleged that the BJP purchased defectors to form a government though it did not have the mandate.

Rebel MLAs seek time

The 15 rebel MLAs of the Congress and the JD(S) have sought four weeks’ time to appear before speaker Ramesh Kumar in connection with the plea for their disqualification from the state assembly.

“Yes, we have sought four weeks’ time from the speaker. We have approached the speaker through our advocate,” Hunsur JD(S) MLA A.H. Vishwanath told PTI.

In their letter, whose contents are identical, the disgruntled MLAs, 13 of whom are camping in a Mumbai hotel, said a petition has been filed under Schedule-10 of the Constitution, by the party, seeking their disqualification.

They added that they were not in receipt of the copy of the petition or the documents annexed to it.

Stating they have learnt that their presence has been sought by Wednesday, the MLAs reminded the speaker that at least seven days time should be given to present their case.

Citing the case of Balchandra L. Jarkiholi versus B.S. Yeddyurappa in 2011, they requested the speaker to grant them four weeks’ time.

The Congress and the JD(S) had sought disqualification of their MLAs under the anti-defection law, but the rebels were not deterred by it and skipped the assembly proceedings during the crucial confidence vote on Tuesday.

A disqualified member loses seat but can get re-elected to the assembly.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs arrive at vidhan soudha. Photo: PTI/File

Previous developments

As the hour neared for the trust vote in the Karnataka assembly, Bengaluru Police Commissioner Alok Kumar announced that the city will come under Section 144. All pubs and wine shops will be closed till July 25. Late in the afternoon, Congress workers alleged that the two Independent MLAs R. Shankar and H. Nagesh, who had withdrawn support from the coalition government in the state were holed up in a flat on Bengaluru’s Race Course Road. This led to protests and subsequent clashes among Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party workers.

As state chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy’s motion of confidence rolled into its fourth day in the assembly, the debate took on tropes of mudslinging which the state’s political landscape has been made quite familiar with in the last few days. Congress leader D.K. Shivakumar said it was not the Bharatiya Janata Party but the rebel MLAs of the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular) who had “backstabbed” him while the Congress’s legislative party head Siddaramaiah foretold a sure defeat for the “defectors”.

Much to the consternation of speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar, the treasury benches of the Vidhan Soudha, occupied by MLAs of the ruling coalition, had remained nearly empty early on the day. Around afternoon, a delegation from the Congress party, along with lawyers of the rebel MLAs met speaker Ramesh Kumar at his chamber in the assembly. It is not known exactly what they discussed.

Earlier in the morning, in New Delhi, Ramesh Kumar’s advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi assured the Supreme Court that the motion has been continued in the House without a break. The court said if the trust vote does not take place by Tuesday, it would hear the petition by the two Independent MLAs who have asked for its intervention to ensure that the trust vote is completed by 6 pm on July 23. Advocate for the MLAs, Mukul Rohatgi, said the court was “optimistic” of the trust vote taking place on Tuesday.


Petitions have also been filed in the Supreme Court by Kumaraswamy (against Karnataka governor Vajubhai Vala’s deadline for the trust vote) and Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee head Dinesh Gundu Rao (against the earlier apex court order allowing the 16 rebel MLAs to sit out the trust vote proceedings).

Also read: Can the Governor Dictate Proceedings of the Legislature?

In the assembly, Congress leaders spoke one by one, amidst protests by the BJP, which has been steady in its demand that the coalition government must fall as it does not have majority, following the mass resignations of 16 of their MLAs.

In the early hours, that the treasury benches were occupied only by a couple of legislators after prolonged but almost usual drama that lasted almost till midnight on Monday, gave ammunition to the BJP.

B.S. Yeddyurappa, who has long since been assumed to be the man behind the machinery to bring down the Kumaraswamy government, said the dispensation had exposed itself. “In spite of not having the numbers, you are continuing shamelessly. You should be ashamed,” he told the treasury benches. He was echoed by BJP leaders like Jagadish Shettar, K.S. Eshwarappa, Basavaraj Bommai and Shobha Karandlaje.


Speaker Ramesh Kumar, who had made it clear on Monday night that voting on the confidence motion would be completed by 6 pm on Tuesday, asked Congress minister Priyank Kharge, who was one of the few ruling coalition MLAs present if this “should be the fate of the speaker or the assembly.” The speaker then warned Kharge of the prospect of losing both credibility and strength.

Eventually, however, Congress MLAs did turn up, including the party’s man of the moment, D.K. Shivakumar.


On Monday, coalition members had forced the speaker to adjourn the House, despite repeated reminders by him that they had committed to complete the trust vote process within the day itself. Noisy protests notwithstanding, the Congress had insisted that it wanted to wait until the apex court heard the independent MLAs’ pleas on Tuesday.

Also read: As Trust Vote Nears, Karnataka Offers Lesson in Subversion of Democracy

Sixteen MLAs — 13 from the Congress and three from JD(S) — resigned in quick succession over the course of four days earlier in the month, setting off the events that have now culminated in the necessity of a trust vote.

One Congress member, Ramalinga Reddy, has meanwhile done a u-turn since resigning, and has said he would support the government.

The ruling combine’s strength is 117. Congress has 78 MLAs, JD(S) has 37, the Bahujan Samaj Party has one. There is also a nominated MLA and the speaker.  With the support of two independents, the BJP has 107 MLAs in the 225-member house, including the nominated MLA and speaker.

If the resignations of the 15 MLAs are accepted or if they stay away, the ruling coalition’s tally will plummet to 101, reducing the government to a minority.

This is a developing story and will be updated as the events unfold in Karnataka.

(With PTI inputs)

As Trust Vote Nears, Karnataka Offers Lesson in Subversion of Democracy

An improvisation over the Karnataka BJP’s innovation of subverting the anti-defection law has made the current move deadlier than its 2008 experiment.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has certainly set new trends and established itself as a party with a difference. In the crisis unfolding in Karnataka, the party has changed the rules of engagement in the handling of members of the legislative assembly by springing a surprise that its rivals – the leaders of the Janata Dal Secular (JDS)-Congress coalition government – are bound to spar over for a long time to come.

An improvisation over the Karnataka BJP’s innovation of subverting the anti-defection law (by getting Congress and JD(S) MLAs to resign from the membership of the House and later getting them re-elected on a BJP ticket) has made the current move deadlier than its 2008 experiment. That year, the defectors were made to resign in ones and twos, unlike this month’s ‘Operation Kamala 4.0’, when a chunk of 11 resignations followed a lone member.

The precision with which the entire operation is being conducted has left its own party leaders, except four or five who were in the know, gawking. The most loyal Congressmen have been targeted and chosen to join Ramesh Jarkiholi, who has been holed up in a Mumbai hotel since December when he was dropped from the coalition ministry on grounds of “non-performance”.

BJP’s tallest leader in the state, B.S. Yeddyurappa has moved from saying “we are no way related to the crisis”, to listing to the media names of those jumping on to the BJP’s bandwagon. It just needed a D.K. Shivakumar arguing with policemen at a Mumbai hotel seeking “coffee with friends”, to clear up muddied waters.

Also read: SC Order On Karnataka Crisis: What It Says and What It Doesn’t

Shivakumar’s move changed the perception that the resignations were a result of internal differences within the Congress and between the Congress and the JD(S). The real factor was the BJP, determined to teach the coalition partners a lesson as the offer of chief ministership to H.D. Kumaraswamy by the Congress had thwarted its “Congress-Mukt” campaign of 2018.

This is not to say that the Congress-JD(S)’s forced marriage was anywhere near a workable one, particularly after fighting pitched battles for over four decades in southern Karnataka. The baggage of the past was hidden behind half-smiles and shaking of hands like professional diplomats before the cameras. Clearly, the central leadership of the Congress, which forged the alliance, did not look beyond its nose to see that the JD(S) has represented the anti-Congress sentiment in the state since 1967.

That was the year when the Congress Samyukta Vidhayak Dal governments were formed in several states, the DMK came to power in Tamil Nadu and the long-lasting Left Democratic Fronts in West Bengal and Kerala. The coalition governments in the northern states fell as soon as Indira Gandhi emerged as a strong leader of a powerful party, post the Bangladesh War.

What we saw in Karnataka in May 2019 was that the anti-Congress vote simply moved over to the BJP. Plus, the Modi factor, riding on the platform of nationalism, resulted in a sweep unseen before against the Congress in Karnataka. Adding a topping to this victory for the BJP were the internal squabbles within the Congress as well as between the Congress and the JD(S).

The work of the coalition partners in the Lok Sabha election appeared as if the knives had already been sharpened over the year of coalition rule. Complaints of non-cooperation by JD(S) ministers to requests from Congress legislators were either not taken seriously or were brushed aside. Each of the “unhappy” MLAs have complaints of either not getting developmental funds for their constituencies or not having officers of their choice on boards or corporations they headed or deals within their domains being made at higher levels.

Clearly, the sharing-of-the-spoils system which the Janata Dal, the previous incarnation of the JD(S), had learnt from the Congress had been either forgotten or ignored. There are also instances like that of a senior and powerful Congress MLA not being even invited for consultations on city affairs by the minister-in-charge. This is where the BJP saw “Vikas” and targeted legislators who belong to the landed gentry with the promise of future commerce.

The BJP realised that the line between commitment to a party’s ideology and business interests has vanished and it was the right time to strike. The fickleness of the elected representative had reduced from 21 days of ministership to 24 hours of change of heart in a span of one week.

As of now, there is little chance of the coalition government surviving. If it does, it will again face this problem sooner than later. If it doesn’t, the BJP is also bound to face a wave of greed. Or will it go in for mid-term elections in December? If so, will it see 1985 happening? That is a call only the country’s second-most powerful man and Union home minister Amit Shah will take.

Either way, the entire operation to get back power could well be a lesson for political science students on ways to subvert democracy.

Imran Qureshi is a senior journalist.

Karnataka: SC Can’t Ask Speaker to Decide on Resignations, says Kumaraswamy

K.R. Ramesh Kumar said he would decide on both disqualification and resignation by Wednesday, requesting the top court to modify its earlier order to maintain status quo.

New Delhi: Karnataka chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy told the Supreme Court Tuesday that it had no jurisdiction to pass the two interim orders asking the assembly speaker to decide and, later, maintain the status quo on the resignations and disqualification of the rebel MLAs.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Kumaraswamy, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the speaker cannot be compelled to decide this issue in a time bound manner.

“When resignation process is not in order, court cannot direct Speaker to decide by 6 PM,” Dhavan told the bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, which resumed hearing in the matter post the lunch break.

Kumaraswamy also told the court that the rebel MLAs were hunting in a pack to destabilise his government and that the court should not have entertained their petitions.

Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for thesSpeaker, told the bench that no direction was issued to the Karnataka speaker by the court in the midnight hearing when floor test was ordered and B.S. Yeddyurappa was invited to form government last year.

He told the bench that the Speaker was yet to decide on the resignations and disqualification of rebel MLAs and the court had ample power to punish.

The Janata Dal (Secular)-Congress coalition government has been in crisis since the MLAs resigned. Photo: PTI

Karnataka assembly speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar urged the Supreme Court to modify its earlier order directing him to maintain status quo in the ongoing political crisis in the state even as the rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs accused him of acting in a partisan manner by not deciding on their resignations.

Singhvi said the Speaker would decide on both disqualifications and resignation of the rebel MLAs by Wednesday but the court should modify its earlier order asking him to maintain status quo.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the rebel MLAs, argued that the speaker cannot keep the resignation of these MLAs pending and by doing so he is acting in a partisan manner.

Countering his submissions, Singhvi told the bench that Speakers cannot be asked to decide the matter in a time-bound manner.

“How can the speaker be directed to decide in a particular manner?” Singhvi asked the court. “Such orders are not passed even to a trial court.”

Also read: Karnataka: Kumaraswamy Govt’s Trust Vote on Thursday, Says Siddaramaiah

He also said that a valid resignation should be submitted to the Speaker personally and the MLAs appeared before him only on July 11, five days after they submitted their resignations to his office.

The rebel MLAs told the court that the Speaker kept their resignation pending just to disqualify them and there was nothing wrong in resigning to escape disqualification.

Rohatgi submitted before the bench that the Speaker can be directed to decide on the resignation of the MLAs by 2 PM and he can take a call on their disqualification later.

The bench asked Rohatgi if there was any constitutional obligation on the Speaker to decide on the MLAs’ disqualification which was initiated after the resignation.

Rohatgi said the rules say to ‘decide now’ on resignation. “How can the Speaker keep it pending?”

The rebel MLAs told the court that the state government has been reduced to minority and the Speaker, by not accepting their resignations, has attempted coercing them to vote for the government in trust vote.

A view of Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Credit: PTI

The bench further asked if all the disqualification pleas are on same grounds, to which Rohatgi replied “more or less same”. Photo: PTI

Disqualification proceeding is a mini-trial under the Constitution’s 10th Schedule, Rohatgi said, adding that resignation is different and its acceptance is based on a single criterion alone– whether it is voluntary or not.

There is nothing to show the rebel MLAs conspired with BJP, the senior advocate said.

The disqualification proceeding was nothing but to scuttle resignation of MLAs, he said.

He also told the court that the disqualification proceedings were initiated for not being a disciplined soldier of the party and for not attending meetings outside the House.

The bench further asked if all the disqualification pleas are on same grounds, to which Rohatgi replied “more or less same”.

He had also told the court that the Speaker has to only see if the resignations were voluntary or not.

“Resignation has to be accepted, there is no other way to deal with it,” Rohatgi told the court.

“It is my fundamental right to do whatever I want to do and cannot be bound due to non-acceptance of resignation by speaker,” submitted Rohatgi.

Also read: Rebel Karnataka MLA Roshan Baig Detained in IMA Jewels Ponzi Scam Case

There is vote of confidence in assembly and the rebel MLAs may be forced to follow whip despite resigning, he said.

Rohatgi told the court that the 10 MLAs resigned on July 6 and disqualification proceedings against two lawmakers were pending.

“When was the disqualification proceedings filed against rest eight MLAs,” the top court asked, to which Rohatgi responded that disqualification proceedings started against them on July 10.

The 10 rebel MLAs moved the apex court alleging that the Speaker was not accepting their resignations.

They are: Pratap Gouda Patil, Ramesh Jarkiholi, Byrati Basavaraj, B.C. Patil, S.T. Somashekhar, Arbail Shivaram Hebbar, Mahesh Kumathalli, K Gopalaiah, A.H. Vishwanath and Narayana Gowda.

The five MLAs, Anand Singh, K. Sudhakar, N. Nagaraj, Munirathna and Roshan Baig, mentioned their application Monday seeking impleadment as parties to the pending plea.

The top court had on Friday restrained the Speaker from taking any decision till July 16 on the resignation and disqualification of the rebel MLAs.

(PTI)

Rebel Karnataka MLA Roshan Baig Detained in IMA Jewels Ponzi Scam Case

While Kumaraswamy has alleged that the BJP was helping Baig leave the state, the saffron party says the government is targeting MLAs who resigned.

Bengaluru: The special investigation team probing the multi-crore IMA Jewels ponzi scam detained rebel Congress MLA Roshan Baig when he was about to board a chartered plane from the Bengaluru international airport, chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy said on Monday.

The chief minister alleged that Bharatiya Janata Party state chief B.S. Yeddyurappa’s personal assistant Santhosh was along with Baig when he was leaving, a charge rubbished by the BJP.

Baig, the MLA from Shivajinagar, was suspended from the Congress for his alleged anti-party activities as he had rebelled against the party leaders.

Kumaraswamy added that on seeing the SIT, Santhosh ran away while the team apprehended Baig.

The chief minister claimed that BJP MLA Yogeshwar was present at the airport at the time and said it was shameful on the part of the BJP that it was helping a former minister, who is facing a probe in the IMA case, escape.

“This clearly shows BJP’s direct involvement in destabilising the government through horse trading,” he alleged.

Also read | Explainer: Do Karnataka Rebel MLAs Have a Case to Press Their Resignation?

The BJP, however, refuted the allegations and accused Kumaraswamy of using the state machinery to save his government.

The saffron party also rubbished the chief minister’s charge that Yeddyurappa’s PA was travelling.

The Kumaraswamy-led Congress-JD(S) government is facing a crisis after a flurry of resignations by its MLAs.

The chief minister has been alleging the BJP’s involvement in pulling down his government.

On Monday, he presented Baig’s case to prove his point.

The chief minister also shared a document on Twitter showing that the plane was supposed to fly Baig as a passenger.

Baig was supposed to appear before the SIT on Monday, but citing some important work he did not turn up and sought time till July 25. The investigators asked him to depose on July 19 instead.

He was needed in the case as the ponzi scheme operator Mohammad Mansoor Khan had accused him of taking Rs 400 crore and not returning it.

Baig has refuted the charge calling it baseless and frivolous.

Leaving more than 30,000 investors in the lurch, Mansoor Khan fled to an unknown place.

On Monday, Mansoor Khan released a video message on YouTube announcing his return to India.

As Speaker Pleads Inability to Decide on Rebel MLAs’ Resignation, Uncertainty Greets SC Order

The speaker has submitted that he is already seized of the disqualification petitions against the rebel MLAs, and is constitutionally bound to decide those first.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose on Thursday afternoon refused to hear the plea of the Karnataka speaker that he would be unable to comply with the bench’s direction – issued in the morning – that he decide the resignations of the rebel MLAs today itself.

The bench assured his senior counsel, A.M. Singhvi, that it would hear him along with the rebel MLAs petition on Friday. The bench’s ex parte order directing the speaker to hear the rebel MLAs at 6 pm today surprised observers, as it was passed without hearing the speaker.

In his application filed today with the bench’s permission, speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar sought vacation of the bench’s order directing him to decide on the resignations today itself. He has submitted that he is already seized of the disqualification petitions against the rebel MLAs, and that constitutionally he is bound to decide those petitions first, before considering their resignations from the assembly.

Also read | Explainer: Do Karnataka Rebel MLAs Have a Case to Press Their Resignation?

The bench’s refusal to hear the speaker’s petition urgently has led to a quagmire. If his plea indeed has substance, he would be unable to comply with the Supreme Court’s morning directive, unless it is modified by the same bench before 6 p.m. On the contrary, if the order remains as it is, and if he does not comply with it, he may be reprimanded for contempt, even if the court finds substance in his application.

The Supreme Court’s direction to the speaker to decide the rebel MLAs’ resignations today also flies in the face of
the proviso to Article 190 (3)(b), which empowers the speaker to reject the resignation of a legislator, “if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit”, he is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine.

Explainer: Do Karnataka Rebel MLAs Have a Case to Press Their Resignation?

It is naive to ignore the fact that the rebel MLAs resigned from their assembly seats only to escape the rigours of the anti-defection law.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose on Thursday directed the Karnataka speaker to decide on the resignations  of the 15 MLAs of the Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) from the state assembly soon after they tender their resignations at 6 pm today.

The unusual order came after the senior counsel for the rebel MLAs, Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that the resignations require formal acceptance by the speaker, who he claimed is dilly-dallying. Rohatgi also alleged that the parties concerned are likely to issue a whip to these rebel MLAs to support the chief minister’s confidence motion, if it becomes necessary, so as to prepare the ground for their disqualification.

When Rohatgi expressed his surprise that the rebel MLAs can’t resign, so as to seek a fresh mandate from the people, rather than defect, CJI Gogoi said: “Nothing surprises us.” The bench also directed police protection to the rebel MLAs in Karnataka as they arrive from Mumbai (where they had taken refuge in a hotel) till they meet the speaker at 6 pm.

The Supreme Court’s direction to the speaker to decide on the resignations today itself is bound to raise eyebrows, if only because the speaker, under the proviso to Article 190(3)(b), has the power to reject a resignation, if he is satisfied that the resignation is not voluntary or genuine.

While the rebel MLAs’ grievance that they can’t resign easily did not surprise the bench, what ought to be of concern to everyone is how legislators can use their resignations from the assembly as an easily available tool to make the Anti-Defection Act unworkable.

Notwithstanding their claims that they wish to seek a fresh mandate from the people, it is naive to ignore the fact that the rebel MLAs in Karnataka have resigned from their seats in the assembly only to escape the rigours of the anti-defection law. A petition by the Congress challenging a similar strategy by a rebel MLA in Goa is pending in the Supreme Court.

The working of the Anti-Defection Act, under the Tenth Schedule of the constitution, since 1985, when it was enacted, has exposed a number of loopholes. The rebel MLAs in Karnataka, who are urging the speaker to accept their resignations from the assembly, are exploiting one such loophole, first put to test in Goa in 2017.

Also read: India’s Politicians Have Turned the Anti-Defection Law on Its Head

On March 14, 2017, the Supreme Court directed the Goa legislative assembly to conduct a floor test on March 16, 2017,  following reports that then chief minister Manohar Parrikar might not enjoy a majority in the newly-constituted assembly. The Congress had 17 members in the 40-member assembly. The Congress legislature party issued a whip directing its members to vote against Parrikar’s motion of confidence. A Congress member, Vishwajeet Rane, elected from the Valpoi constituency, took the oath of affirmation as MLA before the protem speaker, but left the House before the chief minister’s confidence motion was taken up. Abstention was a violation of the whip, and therefore, entailed disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.

On the same day, Rane submitted his resignation to the protem speaker, who accepted it. Rane was then inducted as a minister in the Goa government under Article 164(4) of the constitution, which says that a minister, who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the legislature of the state, shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a minister.

The Election Commission, following the protem speaker’s acceptance of Rane’s resignation, notified a by-election to the Valpoi seat. Rane won as the BJP candidate, and continued as health minister in the Parrikar government. He continued as health minister under Digambar Kamat, who Parrikar succeeded as chief minister in 2012.

The Congress first challenged the acceptance of Rane’s resignation before the Goa bench of the Bombay high court, which dismissed its petition on October 11, 2017.  The Congress then challenged this dismissal in the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, which is pending.

In Goa, the Congress’s grievance was that Rane violated the party’s whip, and thereby incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. In Karnataka, the Congress says the rebel MLAs incurred disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, which disqualifies a member of the assembly for voluntarily giving up his or her membership of the political party on whose symbol he or she was elected to the assembly.

In the Goa case, the Congress contended that the speaker, under the proviso to Article 190 (3) (b) of the constitution, is under an obligation to record his satisfaction as to the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation prior to acceptance. Besides, the speaker, the Congress pointed out, is under an obligation to conduct an inquiry under the Tenth Schedule, before accepting the member’s resignation.

Watch: #BeyondTheHeadlines | As Congress Implodes From Karnataka to Goa, Its Leaders Remain Clueless

The high court dismissed the Congress’s petition on the ground that disqualification incurred under Article 191(2) of the constitution is not for a period of five years and that there is no restraint for a person to offer himself for reelection even after incurring a disqualification on the ground of defection.

Rane had taken oath as the MLA before defying the whip issued by the CLP directing him not to abstain from voting on Parrikar’s confidence motion. Therefore, he had already incurred disqualification before he submitted his resignation.  The Congress’s failure to file a disqualification petition before the speaker, before Rane resigned, was cited by the high court as sufficient reason why the speaker could not have refused to accept Rane’s resignation. The Congress, however, contended that the high court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.

In Rajendra Singh Rana vs Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), the Supreme Court held that a member of a legislative assembly incurs disqualification by his or her mere act of defiance of the party whip, which may be subsequently declared by the Speaker. Therefore, the Congress submitted that Rane already incurred disqualification by the act of defiance of the whip.

More important, the Congress submitted before the Supreme Court that the disqualification of a member under Article 191(2) of the constitution is for a period of five years and not till he or she contests a by-election.  The high court’s conclusion to the contrary was challenged as erroneous.

The question that the Goa case raises is whether a person could continue to be a member of the legislative assembly, after suffering disqualification, on being reelected to the assembly through a by-election. If a person’s re-election through a by-election could erase the previous disqualification on the ground of defection, the object of the Tenth Schedule to the constitution would be defeated.

Can the 13 rebel MLAs in Karnataka claim that by resigning from the assembly, they did not voluntarily quit their party on whose symbol they were elected to the assembly? By resigning en masse from the assembly, the rebel MLAs have clearly strengthened the criticism that their resignations are not genuine, but motivated by their inclination to leave their respective parties in pursuit of lure of offices, offered by the BJP. If their objective is not to leave the party voluntarily, but only to quit their memberships of the assembly to make a larger political point, they should say so clearly.

A member does not resign from the assembly to force a by-election, and recontest the seat under the same party symbol on which he or she was first elected. Clearly, an inclination to quit the party is implied in the resignation from the assembly, unless the member concerned has valid personal reasons for doing so. Mass resignations from the assembly rule out valid personal reasons, and therefore, are not genuine, as required under the law.

Also read: The Imminent Implosion of the Congress-JD(S) in Karnataka Has Happened

Even in their petition filed before the Supreme Court, the rebel MLAs of Karnataka have explained their resignations from the assembly because they were “fed up with the maladministration” in the state. More important, they have not claimed that though they “voluntarily” quit their memberships of the assembly, they continue to be members of their parties.

Can one voluntarily quit the membership of the assembly in protest against maladministration by his or her own party leaders, without dissociating oneself from the policies and programmes of the party on whose symbol he or she was elected? Clearly, it is the dissociation which comes first, as a prelude to resignation from the assembly.

Supreme Court’s case law is in favour of the view that the term ‘voluntarily giving up membership of a political party’ mentioned in Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule as a ground for disqualification may be inferred from the conduct of a member inside and outside the assembly.

Therefore, if a question arises whether voluntary resignation from the assembly or “voluntarily giving up membership of the party” happened first, the speaker has the power to ascertain the facts as to the genuineness of a member’s claim.

#BeyondTheHeadlines | As Congress Implodes From Karnataka to Goa, Its Leaders Remain Clueless

Watch Siddharth Varadarajan’s analysis of how dysfunctional the Congress and its leaders have become in the face of the challenges posed by the party’s poor electoral performance and the dirty tricks of the BJP.

Watch Siddharth Varadarajan’s analysis of how dysfunctional the Congress and its leaders have become in the face of the challenges posed by the party’s poor electoral performance and the dirty tricks of the BJP.

Congress Decimated in Goa: 10 of 15 MLAs Defect to Ruling BJP

The BJP’s numbers have gone up to 27 in the assembly.

Panaji: A group of ten Congress MLAs in Goa, led by leader of opposition in the assembly Chandrakant Kavlekar, on Wednesday merged with the ruling BJP – increasing the saffron party’s strength to 27 in the 40-seat house.

The Congress, which had emerged as single-largest party after the 2017 assembly polls in the coastal state, has now been reduced to five legislators.

Accompanied by Kavlekar and nine other Congress MLAs, Goa chief minister Pramod Sawant announced that two thirds of the Congress Legislative Party – enough to avoid action under the anti-defection law – has merged into the BJP.

The letter of merger was handed over to speaker Rajesh Patnekar in Sawant’s presence on Wednesday evening. Patnekar later said that he had received the letter.

The chief minister said with this, the BJP’s numbers have gone up to 27 in the assembly. The Congress MLAs had expressed willingness to join the BJP, he said.

Also read: The Imminent Implosion of the Congress-JD(S) in Karnataka Has Happened

At this juncture, the BJP had not taken any decision as to its coalition partners (whether to keep them in government or not), he added. With 27 MLAs, the party does not need allies anymore.

“For now, we have not decided anything,” he said.

The monsoon session of the assembly is scheduled to begin from July 15.

Sawant also said no new inductions in the state cabinet were on cards.

Kavlekar said he and other MLAs decided to join the BJP as development works in their constituencies were suffering as they were in opposition.

“We have seen Sawant’s working style. He is working for the progress of the state. We decided to join hands with him. Being in the opposition, our development works were also suffering,” Kavlekar said.

They joined the BJP unconditionally, he claimed.

Also read: Karnataka: Kumaraswamy Cabinet to be ‘Restructured’ After All JD(S), Congress Ministers Resign

The MLAs who joined the BJP along with Kavlekar are Atanasio Monserratte, Jeniffer Monserratte, Francis Silveira, Philip Nery Rodrigues, Cleaofacio Dias, Wilfred D’Sa, Nilkant Halarnkar, Isidor Fernandes and Antonio Fernandes.

The BJP has now 27 MLAs and its ally Goa Forward Party has three.

The Congress has five while NCP and Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) have one MLA each. Three independent MLAs are BJP’s allies.

After the 2017 polls, a hung assembly had emerged with Congress winning 17 and BJP 13 seats. But the BJP outsmarted the Congress by cobbling together a coalition quickly.

Sawant and the ten newly-inducted MLAs are said to be leaving for Delhi late Wednesday night to meet the BJP high command, party sources said.

Karnataka Has a Long History of Attacks on the Freedom of Press

Legislators have no business to sit in judgement on journalists and it is high time they are stripped of their special privileges.

Note: This article was first published on June 16, 2017 and is being republished in the light of United Nations declaring November 2 as the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists.

In the last 12 years, 1000 journalists have died in different parts of the world, killed while doing their job, of collecting and disseminating information to their readers and viewers. More often than not – in 9 cases out of 10 – the perpetrators have not been brought to justice.

In India, we have seen how journalists are increasingly being targeted – the last year alone saw 12 journalists being killed. We in India are proud of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech – yet, the country now ranks 136th among 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index, behind even its neighbours.

To focus on this critical issue, the United Nations has declared November 2 as the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists. This is an effort to “make the perpetrators understand that their crimes will not remain unpunished, that 1000 journalists will rise when one will fall…”

Publications around the world are participating in this initiative, called #TruthNeverDies. The Wire is committed to this cause and fully endorses the spirit behind this effort by UNESCO to focus attention on this troubling state of affairs. We also hope the various authorities will ensure that not only journalists can do their job in a safe and secure environment, but also that anyone causing harm is brought swiftly to justice.

§

Karnataka legislators have long had a penchant to haul up journalists for allegedly breaching their precious ‘parliamentary privileges’. The latest to be targeted are Ravi Belagere and Anil Raju, editors of two local weeklies. Speaker of the legislative assembly and head of the House of Privileges’ Committee, K.B. Koliwad, has sentenced both of them to one year in jail and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for having published allegedly defamatory articles about legislators thus breaching their ‘holier than thou’ privilege.

The point here is not what the two editors published in their journals, because as legal luminaries have pointed out, what they published amounts to defamation and not breach of privilege. The issue here is the colonial legacy called ‘parliamentary privileges’ of elected representatives. This archaic law which allows law makers to become judges and sentence journalists to imprisonment should not even exist in a democracy.

Till 1980, journalism in Karnataka was a staid and somber affair. Even criticism of the ruling elite used to be couched in sanitised conservative words. But then along came Lankesh Patrike with its language of total irreverence and an attitude to call a spade a spade. P. Lankesh, the editor, regaled readers by dubbing the then Chief Minister R Gundu Rao as ‘Gum’ and senior minister S. Bangarappa as ‘Bum’.

Around the same time farmers across the state were up in arms; the Dalit movement was gaining ground as was the Gokak movement which sought prominence for Kannada. There was a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction against the Congress government. Patrike became the voice of all these issues. The strident attacks by Patrike angered Rao so much that in 1981, he said “All journalists should be thrown into the Arabian Sea’’ at a public function.

But it was his successor Ramakrishna Hegde who really tried to throttle the freedom of the press in the name of legislators’ privileges. Though he was portrayed as the ‘original Mr Clean’, ‘PM in the making’ etc, by the mainstream media, it was once again Patrike that brought out the Revajeetu housing scam, NRIHA land scam and the irregularity in allotting arrack bottling contracts under his watch.

Under the guise of codifying the freedom of the press, Hegde tried to usher in the Karnataka Legislature (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) Bill, 1988. However, since the bill allowed for excessive punishment to journalists there was a public outcry. A couple of months later Hegde was forced to resign following telephone tapping charges. His successor S.R. Bommai gave the Bill a quite burial.

Karnataka Assembly Speaker K.B. Koliwad. Credit: Karnataka speaker website

But that was not the case with yet another Janata Party chief minister, J.H. Patel. In one of its cover stories in 1997, Patrike had criticised women legislators for not performing their duties (certainly, the article was not in good taste). Women legislators cutting across party lines had wept copious tears on the floor of the assembly and demanded an explanation from Lankesh. Chief Minister Patel, other ministers and legislators who had borne the brunt of Patrike’s criticism supported the privilege notice.

The sole exception was independent MLA Vatal Nagaraj. Nagaraj, who had physically assaulted Lankesh in 1980 for publishing an article against him, argued that while the article might be considered defamatory it did not attract action under legislators’ privileges. Though the issue created a storm in the assembly for a couple of days, the then speaker Ramesh Kumar subsequently let it die a silent death.

It was not just Lankesh and his publication which were attacked by legislators. Even eminent journalists like T.J.S George were targets of abuse on the floor of the house. Over the years, editors of prominent dailies and weeklies have been summoned before the Privileges Committee on a regular basis (including this author). The committee seems to be of the firm opinion that referring to legislators in the singular, criticising their actions outside the house, exposing their abuse of power is beyond the purview of journalists merely because they are ‘elected representatives’ and hence more equal than others. Most complaints are settled with a reprimand or publication of an apology (however insincere).

In 2012, when Jagadish Shettar of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was chief minister, two MLAs ensured that an editor was made to apologise to the legislative assembly. Abhay Patil, a BJP MLA and Shyam B. Ghatage, a Congress MLA had alleged that Tarun Bharat, a Marathi daily published from Belagavi, had published “baseless” reports against them. The then speaker K.G. Bopaiah had referred their complaints to the Privileges Committee which had found Kiran Thakur, the editor of Tarun Bharat, guilty. Thakur was made to stand in a make-shift dock especially erected in the Assembly, and say “I am sorry. My newspaper has never published any material to undermine the dignity and supremacy of this house”. Though a colleague was made to undergo this public humiliation, strangely, the media fraternity in Karnataka was silent.

With the number of 24X7 Kannada news channels increasing, things are becoming murkier. Needless to say, there is no dearth of local clones of Arnab Goswami. They are just as aggressive in shouting down participants with a different point of view, even more patriotic than the self proclaimed nationalist himself and are prone to exaggeration while ‘breaking news’ every minute of the day.

In March this year, several Congress, BJP and Janata Dal (Secular) MLAs joined hands to condemn TV channels for “projecting them in poor light’”, “twisting facts” and “reporting false news”. BJP MLA Suresh Gowda, who was caught on CCTV camera assaulting a worker at a toll booth, complained on the floor of the house that he was termed “rowdy Suresh Gowda” by a TV Channel. “They use words like goonda and rowdy casually. They even use it against public representatives,” he said.

Finally, Koliwad announced that a House Committee, consisting MLAs from all parties, would be set up to frame rules and regulation for the media. This naturally evoked sharp criticism from the media fraternity. Funnily enough, though several BJP MLAs had insisted on forming of guidelines for the media, they later refused to be part of the Committee saying they did not believe in curbing the freedom of the press. In the face of severe opposition this committee seems to have now slid into sleep mode.

The issue is back again, thanks to the sentencing of Belagere and Raju. Belagere’s style of journalism is certainly not to everyone’s liking. No one seems to know much about Raju or his periodical Yelahanka Voice. Yet, what is important is that legislators have no business to sit in judgements on journalists. It is high time they are stripped of their special privileges. If they feel they have been defamed, let them, like other ordinary citizens, take recourse to legal remedy under various sections of the CRPC. Constitutionally, that would be the right thing to do, instead of sentencing their critics under an archaic law.

Gauri Lankesh is a senior journalist.