Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 25 July 2019
Vidhan Soudha
COURT OF DEFECTION JUSTICE
By Dr S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi
The architect of Vidhan Soudha, the iconic
building that houses Karnataka legislature in Bengaluru, K. Hanumanthaiah and
his team would not have foreseen that the construction they were erecting would
not remain just the most beautiful structure of bricks and mortar in India to
house post-independence law-making body, but become the venue for nationally
significant political/constitutional decisions.
The reference is to determination of majority
and formation of government and particularly to the
impact of the Anti-Defection law, which is an addition to the original Constitution
as 10th Schedule in 1985. This law has received a very crucial
judicial interpretation in a verdict in the Supreme Court on the proceedings held
in this august Assembly in the famous S R Bommai case that the test of majority
should be conducted on the floor of the House. Vidhan Soudha has come to be
linked with the law and politics of defection.
The disputes under the Anti-Defection Law
have also centred round the powers of the Speaker and the Governor who are the
key concerned constitutional authorities.
From Bommai case in 1994 to the triangular
politics between JD(S), Congress, and the BJP presently going on in Karnataka, several
issues surrounding government formation and its continuance, proceedings in the
Assembly, role of political parties and their members, powers of the Speaker,
Governor, and the Supreme Court, and the rights of the MLAs have arisen in the
precincts of Vidhan Soudha.
The moves and counter-moves by members and
parties expose the weakness of the Anti-Defection Law and the immense
possibilities for manipulating and dodging the law by parties. Recent political events in Karnataka are a
naked struggle for power totally eliminating ethics in politics. They prove that
law alone cannot shape institutions and individuals in the absence of the will
of individuals to honour the letter and spirit of the law.
Karnataka government formed in 2018 was itself
a weak formation of a coalition of two parties that bitterly fought each other
in the election and joined hands after the election -- Congress with 78 members
and JD(S) with 37 members -- claiming majority in a House of 224 members. The
BJP winning highest number of seats had 105 members and was first invited to
form the government. Since it failed to
get majority support, the rivals turned partners got the chance with the
smaller of the two as the head. However, 14 months later, the Opposition BJP
tasted success and defeated the confidence motion moved by the CM on Tuesday
last.
The current episode started with the
resignations of 13 MLAs (10 Congress and 3 JDS) on 6th July, and the
Speaker wanted at least six days to decide whether they were voluntary and
genuine. Speaker also raised a question about the format of the resignation
letters of eight of them. The Congress party filed a petition to disqualify the
rebel members who stayed away from the Legislature Party meeting convened by
the party.
Number of resignations increased and some
members moved the Supreme Court seeking its direction to the Speaker to accept
the resignations.
Two issues were before the Speaker –
resignations and disqualification of the members by their parties. The Supreme
Court gave time till 11th July to the Speaker to decide on the
resignations which raised the first constitutional issue in the episode whether
the Speaker - a constitutional authority - could be given a time frame by the
court to decide the matter of resignation. The court asked the Speaker to
maintain status quo till 16th July. No decision could be taken by
the Speaker on questions of disqualification or resignation. The Speaker asked the
rebel members to appear before him in two batches on July 12 and 15.
Converting resignation into disqualification
issue virtually denies concerned legislators the right to quit their seats in
the legislature. A disqualified member cannot hold a parliamentary office or
become a minister without getting reelected – a situation that would prevent
the rebels from joining opposition for positions whereas a person who resigns
may be inducted into an alternative ministry. But, disqualification cannot be
effected without establishing its ground while resignation
is a simple question of acceptance by the competent authority.
The power of the Speaker is quite substantial
in applying Anti-Defection law, but Speakers are generally reluctant to disqualify
a member. The question whether the Speaker’s inaction can be challenged in a
court is already pending before a Constitution bench. Such inaction happened in
Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka is now exposing another
dimension of the problem.
Meanwhile, further resignations followed and
five more of the rebels moved the Supreme Court complaining of threat and
intimidation by their party. Their contention is that the right to resign from
their office is a “fundamental right of a citizen as well as a public
representative”. They disputed the need to verify the genuineness of their
resignations as they submitted letters personally to the Speaker and also
submitted sworn affidavits in the apex court.
Supreme Court order while upholding the
Speaker’s right to decide issues of disqualification and resignation, provided
exemption to the 15 rebels from attending the on-going Assembly session where a
trust vote was in process. It was to “strike a balance’ as the Speaker was
delaying acceptance of their resignations. Both JD(S) and the Congress filed a
petition seeking clarification of the Supreme Court on this order.
On 23rd July the game was finally
over for the coalition. When the trust vote was taken, the coalition government
had 99 members against BJP’s 105. The reason to prolong the debate and gain
time for negotiations with the rebels, simply didn’t work for it and the
government fell.
In this story that is rather confusing and
boring to onlookers, the Governor set “deadlines” for trust vote thrice, but
they were not complied with. On the contrary, the CM asked the Speaker to decide
whether the Governor can give a deadline. Thus, every move of Constitutional
functionaries is being subjected to questioning by the affected making the tale
one of mutual check to fix limits of authorities.
Obviously, there are many defects in the
existing system and procedures which can lead to collapse of orderly governance
in the hands of politicians. The country is going through a testing time and
requires cleaning of institutions by well-meaning politicians.
Faced with possibilities of more resignations
rather than return of the rebels, the CM moved Trust Vote on 18th
July. However, parliamentary practices permit enormous delay in ending the
suspense despite fixing of time frame by the Speaker several times.
A Trust Vote is different from a
No-Confidence Motion. The former is for proving majority – a question of simple
arithmetic and needs no arguments to carry conviction. The latter needs
speeches to establish the grounds for loss of confidence in the government.
Members of any party are free to move from
one party to another, but only have to take the consequences of their move. When
they want to move without any adverse consequences to their career, trouble
starts if they clash with an existing law or established precedent.
Vidhan Soudha has earned unenviable distinction
of being the venue for the play of defection politics for too long. It must
come out of its preoccupation with making and breaking governments and settle
down for more serious function of governance.--- INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|