Tuesday, Aug 11, 2020 | Last Update : 12:19 AM IST

140th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra52451335842118050 Tamil Nadu3028752446755041 Andhra Pradesh2355251456362116 Karnataka182354991263312 Delhi1461341316574131 Uttar Pradesh126722767212120 West Bengal98459671202059 Bihar8274154139450 Telangana8075157586637 Gujarat71064542382652 Assam5883842326145 Rajasthan5249738235789 Odisha4592731785321 Haryana4163534781483 Madhya Pradesh3902529020996 Kerala3433121832109 Jammu and Kashmir2489717003472 Punjab2390315319586 Jharkhand185168998177 Chhatisgarh12148880996 Uttarakhand96326134125 Goa871259575 Tripura6161417641 Puducherry5382320187 Manipur3752204411 Himachal Pradesh3371218114 Nagaland30119738 Arunachal Pradesh223115923 Chandigarh1595100425 Meghalaya11154986 Sikkim9105101 Mizoram6203230
  India   All India  14 Nov 2019  SC upholds disqualification of Karnataka MLAs, lets them fight bypolls

SC upholds disqualification of Karnataka MLAs, lets them fight bypolls

THE ASIAN AGE. | PARMOD KUMAR
Published : Nov 14, 2019, 2:31 am IST
Updated : Nov 14, 2019, 3:36 am IST

The Supreme Court has also said that if elected in the bypolls, the disqualified MLAs can become ministers or hold public office.

A file photo of the disqualified MLAs at Raj Bhavan in Bengaluru
 A file photo of the disqualified MLAs at Raj Bhavan in Bengaluru

New Delhi: In a mixed verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the disqualification of 17 Karnataka MLAs belonging to the Congress and Janata Dal (Secular), but set aside then Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar’s order unseating them for the remainder of the current Assembly’s term, paving the way for them to contest the coming byelection to 17 seats.

After the court’s verdict, all eyes were on the BJP’s next move, on whether it would give tickets to the Congress-JD(S) rebels. Karnataka deputy chief minister C.N. Ashwathnarayan said the disqualified MLAs would join the BJP on Thursday in Bengaluru. The Supreme Court has also said that if elected in the bypolls, the disqualified MLAs can become ministers or hold public office.

 

Upholding the disqualification orders passed by then Speaker Ramesh Kumar on July 25 and July 28, 2019, a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Sanjeev Khanna and Krishna Murari set aside the part of the Speaker’s order unseating the 17 for the rest of the Assembly’s term. Calling for the strengthening of the anti-defection law to ensure that “undemocratic practices are discouraged and checked”, Justice Ramana said there was a “growing trend” of Speakers “acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral”.

The court also lamented that “horse-trading and corrupt practices” associated with defections and change of loyalties for the “lure of office or wrong reasons have not abated”.  As a principle, the court SC upholds disqualification of MLAs, lets them fight bypolls said it was the prerogative of a member to resign and he could not be compelled to continue in the legislature. “Once it is demonstrated a member is willing to resign out of his free will, the Speaker has no option but to accept the resignation” — a point emphasised by the 17 MLAs in the course of the hearing.

 

Not accepting the disqualified MLAs’ argument that the disqualification proceedings cannot be continued if the resignations are tendered, the court said: “Even if the resignation is tendered, the act resulting in disqualification arising prior to the resignation does not come to an end.”

However, the verdict said that “a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule shall be subjected to sanctions provided under Articles 75(1B), 164(1B) and 361B of the Constitution, which provides for a bar from being appointed as a minister or from holding any remunerative political post from the date of disqualification till the date on which the term of his office would expire or if he is re-elected to the legislature, whichever is earlier”.

 

Rejecting the plea by the Congress and JD(S) that the entire issue be sent to a larger five-judge Constitution Bench, Justice Ramana said: “The existence of a substantial question of law does not weigh on the stakes involved in the case, rather it depends on the impact the ‘question of law’ will have on the final determination.”

Making it clear there was no “substantial question of law” in this matter which needs reference to a larger bench as sought by the Congress and JD(S), the court said: “If the questions having a determining effect on   the final   outcome have already been decided by a conclusive authority, then such questions cannot be called as ‘substantial questions’ of law.”

 

Tags: supreme court of india, k.r. ramesh kumar
Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi