Tag: Ramesh Kumar

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)

Karnataka Crisis: A 2016 SC Ruling Holds Crucial Answers on the Scope of Governor’s Powers

Karnataka governor’s directive to the assembly to complete the trust vote within a time frame has raised the question of whether he has the power to do so, and the consequences of the assembly’s non-compliance.

There are two aspects to the ongoing controversy over when the Karnataka assembly speaker, K.R. Ramesh Kumar, should schedule the trust vote in favour of chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy.

The first is the scope of the speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule in the disqualification proceedings pending against the MLAs who have submitted their resignations from the assembly, and are awaiting their acceptance by the speaker.

The second is whether the speaker could be directed, either by the governor or the Supreme Court, to hold a trust vote within a time-frame in the midst of the assembly proceedings called for the purpose.

On both, clear answers are available from the Supreme Court constitution bench’s judgment in a 2016 Arunachal Pradesh case.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the prayer of two MLAs of the Karnataka assembly for a direction to the speaker to hold the trust vote on the same day. A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has indicated that it might list their case on Tuesday for hearing.  The petitioners, one belonging to a minor party, and the other an independent, R. Shankar and Nagesh stated that they had withdrawn their support to the ruling coalition, making it a minority government.

Meanwhile, the speaker, Kumar, has reportedly asked the 15 rebel MLAs – who have been camping in Mumbai since their resignation from the assembly – to appear before him on Tuesday for a hearing on the disqualification petitions against them for voluntarily quitting their parties.

The Supreme Court is also likely to hear the applications filed by chief minister Kumaraswamy and Karnataka Congress chief, Dinesh Gundu Rao, seeking clarifications on the court’s interim order on the rebel MLAs. The order stated that the MLAs who have resigned from the assembly, but are awaiting acceptance from the speaker, cannot be compelled to attend the proceedings of the House. In their view, the order poses uncertainty over the question of the issue of a whip to them to attend the assembly and vote in favour of the confidence motion.

Karnataka chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy and his deputy G. Parameshwara with other members during an assembly session at Vidhana Soudha. Photo: PTI

As the Supreme Court begins hearings on these issues, it cannot ignore the unanimous judgment delivered by a five-judge constitution bench in the Arunachal Pradesh case in 2016.

Scope of governor’s powers

The Karnataka governor, Vajubhai Vala, twice last week directed the chief minister to complete the floor test. His first direction was to complete the floor test by 1:30 pm last Friday. When it was ignored, he renewed his directive through another letter to the chief minister and the speaker – to complete it by 6 pm on Friday. The second directive was also not complied with by the chief minister and the assembly.  

Also read | Karnataka Crisis: Can the Governor Dictate Proceedings of the Legislature?

The completion of the floor test at the earliest, the governor suggested, was a constitutional imperative at a time when allegations of horse-trading are widely being made. The speaker reportedly said that he would not be able to take up the trust vote unless all discussions on the ongoing confidence motion, moved by the chief minister, have been completed.  

The governor’s direction, therefore, raises the question of whether he could send a message to the assembly to complete the proceedings within a deadline, and the consequences of the assembly’s non-compliance with such a direction.   

The Arunachal Pradesh case

On November 3, 2015, the then Arunachal Pradesh governor, Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa advanced the state assembly session by one month from January 14, 2016, to December 16, 2015, without the aid and advice of his council of ministers. This because he believed that the then chief minister, Nabam Tuki, had lost the majority in the assembly, and therefore, was required to test it at the earliest. 

The governor also indicated that the manner in which the proceedings of the House should be conducted by issuing a message to the assembly on December 9, 2015. As the then challenged it in the Supreme Court, a five-judge constitution bench heard and delivered its judgment on July 13, 2016. 

Justice J.S. Khehar’s main judgment – with which the other four judges concurred – held that the governor can summon, prorogue and dissolve the House only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers with the chief minister as the head.  “And not at his own,” he wrote.

Arunachal Pradesh speaker Nabam Rebia. Photo: PTI

Justice Khehar was categorical that allowing the governor to overrule the resolve and determination of the state legislature or the state executive would not harmoniously augur with the strong democratic principles enshrined in the provisions of the constitution.  

But what happens when the majority of the incumbent chief minister is debatable? Justice Khehar, relying on the opinion expressed by eminent authors M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, held that the mere fact that some members of the ruling party defected does not necessarily prove that the party has lost confidence of the House.  

If the governor has reasons to believe that the chief minister and his council of ministers have lost the confidence of the House, only then is it open to the governor to require them to prove their majority in the House by a floor test. Only in such a situation – where the government in power on the holding of such a floor test is seen to have lost the confidence of the majority – would it be open to the governor to exercise the powers vested with him under Article 174 at his own, and without any aid and advice, Justice Khehar held. 

Unlike the situation in Karnataka, the governor of Arunachal Pradesh did not call for a floor test, and therefore, the bench concluded that he could not have summoned the House, in his own discretion, by advancing the session.  

Justice Khehar’s judgment also dealt with the governor’s power to address messages to the House and concluded that the bench had no hesitation in holding that such messages have to be in consonance with the aid and advice tendered to him.   

Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Photo: PTI/Atul Yadav

Two grounds justifying the governor’s message to the assembly on December 9, 2015, were cited: one, a notice for the removal of the speaker, Nabam Rebia, addressed by 13 MLAs to the secretary of the legislative assembly, was pending and had to be taken up by the assembly immediately after the expiry of 14 days under Article 179 of the constitution.  

The bench held that the governor has no express or implied role under Article 179 on the subject of the removal of the speaker or deputy speaker. It is for the MLAs to determine whether such a notice should be adopted or rejected, the bench clarified. 

Second, it was suggested that a petition was preferred by the chief whip of the Congress Legislature Party for the disqualification of 14 MLAs belonging to the ruling Congress – under the Tenth Schedule. The governor informed the presiding officer of the House that till the assembly session was prorogued, the party composition of the House should not be altered.   

The constitution bench emphasised that the governor has no role in the disqualification of members of the assembly. The exclusive jurisdiction on the above issue, the bench held, rests with the speaker of the assembly – under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. The remedy for any wrongdoing under the Tenth Schedule, the bench held, lies by way of judicial review. “It does not lie within the domain of the Governor, to interfere with the functions of the Speaker”, the bench made it clear.   

The bench added: 

“The Governor is not a guide or mentor to the Speaker.  The Governor cannot require the Speaker to discharge his functions in the manner he considers constitutionally appropriate.  Both the Governor and the Speaker have independent constitutional responsibilities. The Governor’s messages with reference to such matters (as were expressed in the message dated 9.12.2015) do not flow from the functions assigned to him.  The Governor cannot likewise interfere in the activities of the Assembly, for the reason that the Chief Minister, or the entire Council of Ministers, or an individual Minister in the Cabinet, or for that matter even an individual MLA, are not functioning in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution, or in the best interest of the State.  The State Legislature does not function under the Governor. In sum and substance, the Governor just cannot act as the Ombudsman of the State Legislature.”   

The bench then set aside the governor’s message to the assembly dated December 9, 2015.

Political thicket

In his latest directive to the chief minister, the governor of Karnataka referred to the attempts at horse-trading to justify his deadline for completing the trust vote in the assembly. The Supreme Court, in the Arunachal Pradesh case, held that it is not within the realm of the governor to embroil himself in any political thicket.   

The bench held as follows: 

“The Governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties,   The activities within a political party, confirming turbulence, or unrest within his ranks, are beyond the concern of the Governor. The Governor must keep clear of any political horse-trading, and even unsavoury political manipulations, irrespective of the degree of their ethical repulsiveness.   Who should or should not be a leader of a political party is a political question to be dealt with and resolved privately by the political party itself. The Governor cannot make such issues, a matter of his concern. The provisions of the Constitution do not enjoin upon the Governor, the authority to resolve disputes within a political party, or between rival political parties.”

The bench distinguished between governor’s reports to the president on the political scenario of the state, and the scope of his authority to engage through his constitutional position, and exercise his constitutional authority, to resolve the same. The former, it held, is justified, while the latter is not.

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

Although the factual matrix in Arunachal Pradesh case was different, the observations of the court on the role of the governor have a resonance in the ongoing turmoil in Karnataka.   

Justice Khehar held: 

“Any action taken by the Governor, based on disputations, with reference to activities in which he has no role to play, is liable to be considered as extraneous.  It is not for the Governor to schedule the functioning of the Assembly. It is also not in the Governor’s domain, to schedule the agenda of the House. The Governor has no role with reference to the ongoings in the Assembly. The Governor must keep away, from all that goes on, within the House…. The Governor need not worry about, or involve himself in, issues which are within the realm of other constitutional authorities. The Indian Constitution provides for checks and balances, and a regime of redressal, for all situations.”

Justice Madan B. Lokur, in his separate judgment in the Arunachal Pradesh case, was more emphatic than Justice Khehar. He was categorical that in the event the governor could not get the advice of the chief minister or the council of ministers, and responsible government was not possible, the governor could resort to the “breakdown provisions” and leave it to the president to break the impasse. 

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

In Arunachal Pradesh, the governor did not require the chief minister to prove that he had the confidence of the assembly but summoned the assembly to meet on a particular day, without the aid and advice of the chief minister. In Karnataka, the chief minister offered to seek the confidence of the assembly himself without the directive from the governor, but the governor chose to interfere with the proceedings of the assembly, convened for the purpose, by ‘directing’ when the trust vote must be completed.  

Notwithstanding these factual differences, the holdings of the Supreme Court on the scope of governor’s powers in the context of the proceedings of the House are quite relevant in Karnataka. For the same reason, the Supreme Court too will find the scope for its intervention before the assembly takes up the trust vote, extremely limited.

The assembly should be allowed to debate the pros and cons of the trust motion – moved by the chief minister fully – before it takes up the vote on the motion. Curtailing the debate to hasten the vote, and the result is not the essence of democracy.

Karnataka Crisis: Can the Governor Dictate Proceedings of the Legislature?

Vajubhai Vala’s letter asking the speaker to hold a trust vote at a certain time has thrown up questions about the autonomy of the legislature and the governor’s powers.

We are yet to see the denouement of the political drama being played out in Karnataka, where exciting scenes were enacted last week in the assembly. The speaker not taking a quick decision on the resignations of 15 MLAs made the proceedings exciting, while the BJP displayed an unexplained keenness to have the resignations accepted at the earliest. The governor’s communication to the speaker to put the confidence motion to vote at 1:30 pm on Friday added another twist, before the speaker’s cool refusal to oblige lent another dimension.

The Raj Bhavan communique threw up at once serious constitutional issues concerning the autonomy of the legislature, as well as the powers or the role of the governor in the matter of conducting the proceedings of the legislature. In this brief article, we will examine this interesting question. We will also look at the possibility of president’s rule in that state, in the backdrop of speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar’s refusal to act according to the direction of governor Vajubhai Vala.

Articles 174, 175 and 176 describe the governor’s duty with respect to the state’s legislature. Under Article 174, the governor summons the house/houses of the legislature, prorogues them and finally dissolves the assembly. Under Article 175, she addresses the house/houses and for this purpose, requires the attendance of the members. This Article also empowers the governor to send messages to the houses with respect to a Bill then pending in a house of legislature or otherwise. Under Article 176, the governor makes the customary annual address in the house and at the commencement of the first session after each general election.

Also Read: Karnataka: Kumaraswamy Moves SC over Governor’s Letter, Congress Over Order on MLAs

The governor performs all these functions on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. It may be noted here that under our constitutional scheme, the governor is a mere constitutional head and is bound to act on the advice of the elected government, headed by the chief minister. Of course, he can act independently only (i) when he appoints a chief minister and (ii) sends a report to the president under Article 356, stating that the constitutional machinery in the state has broken down.

Speaker is the sole authority

The question that now arises is if under any of the Articles quoted above, the governor can direct the speaker to end discussion on a confidence motion and put it to vote at a particular time. The answer is no. Proceedings of the house are absolutely under the speaker’s control. The speaker alone can decide when a motion should be put to vote, how many members should speak and whether the house has debated the motion enough and so on. No other authority has any power to intervene in this matter.

That is the reason why the speaker of the Karnataka assembly expressed his helplessness in acting on the direction of the governor and continued the debate. If the speaker feels that the debate should continue, he can extend the time allocated to the debate. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about it. Similarly, if it appears to the speaker that there has been enough debate on a subject, he can immediately close it. In other words, the speaker is the final authority in the matter of controlling the proceedings of the legislature.

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

Some experts have suggested that the governor can send messages to the legislature and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the governor issuing a direction to the speaker. Sending a message to the house under Article 175(2) is different from directing the speaker to close a debate in the house. A message under Article 175(2) essentially relates to a Bill then pending in the house and though the words “or otherwise” are used, it can’t cover everything under the sun. The Constitution does not envisage a governor who can control the legislature through directions and messages. It must also be remembered that the governor can send the messages to the house only on the advice of the council of ministers. He cannot send any message independently.

Karnataka chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. Photo: PTI

The question of president’s rule

Finally, the question about president’s rule in the state, which can be imposed under Article 356 only if there is a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in a state. There is no sign of such a breakdown in Karnataka. It is usual for a government which loses its majority on the account of defections or other unforeseen circumstances to seek a vote of confidence, or face a no-confidence motion. Till the assembly decides it one way or the other, the incumbent government is presumed to have majority. So, there is no occasion for the president to step in. The constitutional machinery does not breakdown when the speaker decides to continue the debate on the confidence motion for another day, even in defiance of the governor’s direction. The governor’s direction to the speaker has no sanction under the Constitution.

Similarly, the governor’s direction to chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy to end the debate is not capable of being acted upon, because the chief minister does not control the proceedings in the house. He also does not have the power under the rules to decide when the motion should be put to vote. Even if he makes such a request to the speaker, the speaker is not bound to accept it. It is not very clear what constitutional point the Raj Bhavan wanted to make by giving such directions.

Further, the party in opposition in Karnataka is too eager to see the present government fall and form their own government. It has not been an innocent bystander. Why should they ask for president’s rule when they have been impatiently waiting to form a government of their own? It is of course, a mischievous thought that those 15 MLAs could have gone to Munnar in Kerala to enjoy the natural beauty, instead of going to Mumbai where monsoon has been wreaking havoc. But then, we should know that even the place of vacation chosen by politicians has great political significance.

P.D.T. Achary is a former secretary general of the Lok Sabha.

As Karnataka Speaker Seeks Time to Examine Resignations, Rebel MLAs Whisked Back to Mumbai

Ramesh Kumar said the resignations have now been submitted in the “right format”, but he needed time to see if they are voluntary.

New Delhi: After rebel MLAs appeared before him on Thursday evening, Karnataka assembly speaker Ramesh Kumar said he needs to examine if the resignations that they submitted are “voluntary or genuine”.

Speaking at a press conference after the meeting, Kumar said the resignations have now been submitted in the “right format”, but that he needed time to examine them.

“The MLAs had come, they said they want to resign, I said they can give. They asked me to accept it. I will have to see whether it is genuine or voluntary and be convinced,” Kumar said.

Asserting he will abide by rules, the speaker said he will take a “just decision which may be of convenience to some and inconvenience to some”.

Meanwhile, the MLAs have been rushed back to Mumbai, where they have been camping since they tendered their resignations.

The proceedings of the meeting were recorded on video and will be sent to the Supreme Court registrar general, Kumar informed. “The Supreme Court asked me to come to a decision. I have written to them the word “forthwith” they have said, I am unable to understand – what to decide, as Constitution says something else, so I have given them (MLAs) time (to appear before me),” he said.

Kumar also insisted that he was neither responsible for the current political situation nor its outcome.

Rebel Karnataka MLAs arrive at vidhan soudha. Photo: PTI

As many as ten Karnataka rebel MLAs, who were camping in Mumbai, arrived in Bengaluru by two special flights, hours after the Supreme Court allowed them to meet the assembly speaker to convey their decision to resign.

According to The News Minute, the MLAs who entered the speaker’s office were Ramesh Jarkiholi, Munirathna Naidu, Byrathi Basavaraj, S.T. Somashekhar, B.C. Patil, K. Gopalaiah, Shivaram Hebbar, Narayana Gowda, A.H. Vishwanath, Prathap Gouda Patil and Mahesh Kumatahalli.

The MLAs boarded a luxury bus from the HAL airport and proceeded towards the Vidhana Soudha, the state secretariat.

Immediately after meeting the speaker and submitting their resignations in the “correct format”, the MLAs were whisked back to the HAL airport to head back to Mumbai.

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

The top court earlier asked the speaker to decide “forthwith” on Thursday about the resignation of ten rebel Congress-JD(S) coalition MLAs, allowing them to meet him at 6 pm.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the decision taken by the speaker has to be intimated on Friday, when the court takes up the matter again.

The resignation of 16 MLAs (13 from Congress and three from JDS) has pushed the coalition government to the brink of collapse. Two independent MLAs have also withdrawn support to the coalition government.

(With PTI inputs)

In Neduvasal, a Push to Protect Farmlands Is About Holding the Government Accountable

While farmers, researchers and activists want politicians to be more transparent and honest, the government continues to say due process will be followed in Neduvasal.

While farmers, researchers and activists want politicians to be more transparent and honest, the government continues to say due process will be followed in Neduvasal.

Oily wastes left behind after a previous hydrocarbon extraction project winded up in Cauvery delta. Source: Author provided. (Neduvasal)

Oily wastes left behind after a previous hydrocarbon extraction project winded up in Cauvery delta. Source: Author provided.

After jallikattu, Tamil Nadu is witnessing another massive protest in Neduvasal village of Tamil Nadu’s Pudukottai district. Thousands of farmers, students, environmentalists and activists are in attendance against a proposed hydrocarbon extraction project in active farm lands in and around the village.

On February 15, 2017, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi approved the awarding of contracts in 31 areas, including a disputed site in Neduvasal (for which Gem Laboratories was the successful bidder). As news of the proposed hydrocarbon project in the farmlands spread, farmers have raised their voices together in dissent. With a failed monsoon, Tamil Nadu had declared drought this January. The farmers who began the protest claimed that this project could only mean further depletion of groundwater as well as possible sea-water intrusion into their farmlands. 

A former senior agricultural officer stated that, while Modi’s bid to produce clean energy within India was admirable, it shouldn’t take off by exploiting India’s farm lands. “The state has already been under the National Human Rights Commission’s scanner for rising farmer suicides and such development projects could only drive the farmers further to the brink. We cannot afford to lose any more farm lands.”

He added, “It has been only two years since the Tamil Nadu government rejected permission for extraction of coal bed methane in the Cauvery delta districts and their farmlands are again under threat again by a very similar project.”

The previous order had been issued after the state government upon recommendations of the expert technical committee appointed to study the impact of the proposed coal bed methane (CMB) extraction project of the Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (GEECL). Then Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa had also written to the Centre to not permit such projects without consulting the state government first.

More recently, however, Modi’s statement at the Petrotech 2016 conference had given reason for social activists in Tamil Nadu to believe that the CBM project was starting to make its way back. Modi had stated, among other things, that the Centre has “come up with a new Hydrocarbon Exploration Licensing Policy (HELP)”. He said it would provide “for uniform license for exploration and production for all forms of hydrocarbon including shale oil, gas and CBM.”

Within a few days, Facebook and Twitter were rife with speculation on a proposed hydrocarbon project – even as northern coastal Tamil Nadu was forced to deal with an oil spill, which it did poorly.

In Neduvasal, the movement against the project was spurred by a Tamil rights activist group called the May 17 Movement, which had produced a video intended to galvanised support. Contributors to it said that information in the video had been put together from various case studies on similar projects from around the world. Paneer Perumal, a volunteer, said they had also gone from door to door and spread awareness about the need to stop methane project because it was going to be on agricultural lands.

The video went viral on WhatsApp and in Facebook groups. Some activists said it – and others like it – as well as memes and other visual material were crucial in the movement acquiring momentum as quickly as it did.

Apart from protecting their farmlands, the Neduvasal protests also stand for a rising lack of trust in the government – central and state – and its promises. S. Thirumurthy, a 39-year-old farmer from Sathyamangalam, about 300 km to the west of Neduvasal, said, “We cannot lose our fertile agricultural lands. You’ll have fuels that are made in India but what about food? Should we take food as pills? As such, the state is reeling from drought, these projects will only worsen the situation. Who will we turn to in case of a spillage? Why are farmers taken for granted? ”

He also alleged that the ‘water wars’ waged between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka were simply political gimmicks, often to assuage paper mills. “We do not want the government’s crop loans or minuscule subsidies, just leave us alone.”

Earlier, BJP national secretary H. Raja had appealed to farmers to not be carried away by “false propaganda by vested interests”. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) had backed it with a statement from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which had said that “concerns about adverse environmental impact on nearby areas and the people living there are also misplaced, as all petroleum operations require prior environmental clearances from the [environment ministry], wherein public hearing is an integral part of obtaining these clearances.”

Farmers in and around Neduvasal have been particularly wary of groundwater depletion and contamination. A PIB release on February 27, 2017, stated, “Oil and gas extraction are being carried out from deeper earth area (generally > 1,000 m), and thus [do not] affect ground water aquifers which are located at much shallower levels.”

“I see no direct impact on groundwater but overall operations such as storage or transport, if not carefully done, may lead to contamination,” Himanshu Kulkarni, a hydrologist and executive director of the Advanced Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, Pune, told The Wire. “I feel both sets of people, farmers and oil agencies, should take equal responsibility for the water.”

A former professor of ecology (who wished to remain anonymous) who had studied the agricultural impact of previous oil exploration operations in Tamil Nadu believes that the impact may have been been hyped up by activists and played down by the government.

“There’s a huge communication gap, there should be more transparency in the government process and all stakeholders should be scientifically informed. When these protestors could collect data and videos, so can the government,” he told The Wire. “If possible, the government should educate the public with case studies” from the past. He recalled that in one of his studies, his team had observed that such operations could reduce the yield in nearby farms, adding that compensation ought to be offered to farmers based on that data.

Crisis management

A geologist from Puducherry agreed: “We need to bring more transparency and accountability into the process. Poor handling of the recent oil spillage and floods has caused people to lose faith in the system. We can never say that there will be no impact, we need to talk openly about the remedial measures, and compensation, at the very beginning.”

In 2012, an oil leak in the cultivable lands of Keezhavelur in Nagapattinam district caused the lands to turn fallow for three years. Jayanthi Natarajan, then the environment minister, had intervened on the farmers’ behalf to ensure they received fair compensation. Even so, “there is no foolproof method when you are dealing with such issues, with many varying geological conditions,” according to senior hydrogeologist Christopher Jayakaran. “It is necessary to do sustained maintenance work and be adequately prepared for any crisis.”

Protestors at a meeting in Neduvasal. Source: Author provided

Protestors at a meeting in Neduvasal. Source: Author provided

Jayakaran has worked for over 40 years in Japan, Germany, Africa and other regions, and believes that crisis management is what we could be lacking in the most. “Will we adhere to the safety regulations in India is a million dollar question. Leakage of methane from pipelines – a problem throughout the world – has been reported and studied for years.” He quoted a report publicised in the New Scientist in September 1990, wherein natural gas pipeline mains in Great Britain had leaked so much methane that the leaks “contributed more to global warming than the burned gas” itself.

The February 27 PIB release further stated, “The process of drilling and production requires very limited surface land area (generally 120×120 sq. m) which will not affect agriculture or the soil of the entire lease area.” But Jayakaran has his doubts: he observed that the release does not indicate the number of well fields nor the number of production holes to be drilled. “This 120 by 120 sq. m is for one well. What about the distribution?”

Ajay Kansal, a deputy general manager of production at the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, wrote in an email to this correspondent that the “PIB brief contained a general statement as per industry practice, considering the normal land requirement in on-land well-drilling operations. However, awardee operator requires firming up a detailed field development plan, as per their assessment, containing details of required drilling of wells and other facilities.”

Moreover, Jayakaran said, “The drilling of exploratory wells are likely to go down to 6,000 m and unless a very careful drilling methodology, development and designs are used, there is no guarantee that the aquifers, even if they were shallow, will not be affected.”

“If fracking or hydraulic fracturing is used, the problem of gas leak and pollutants mixing with the groundwater are real and the damage is irreversible,” he added. “One major cause of gas contamination is improperly constructed or failing wells that allow gas to leak from the well into groundwater. Another potential avenue for groundwater contamination is natural or manmade fractures in the subsurface, which could allow stray gas to move directly between an oil and gas formation and groundwater supplies.”

However, Kansal said, “It is not certain the whether hydraulic fracturing will be used for stimulation of well or not at present. This will be known in due course of time, being widely used through the world. Since the depth of reservoirs in these fields are deeper (>1,500 m), there is no likely possibility of contamination of the water table.” He then reiterated that environmental impact assessments, and the public hearings therewith, will have to be conducted before any work could begin.

Tamil Nadu’s incumbent chief minister, Edappadi K. Palaniswami, has said that “the state government has not granted any license to commercially extract natural gas at Neduvasal.”

With inputs from Ramesh Kumar.