SC Refuses to Stay Disqualification of Karnataka Independents

New Delhi, Mar 1 (PTI): The Supreme Court today refused to stay the disqualification of five independent Karnataka legislators for allegedly violating the anti-defection law or permit them to vote during the March 4 Rajya Sabha election in the state. 

 
A bench of justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, however, issued notices to the Speaker and the chief whip of the state's ruling BJP party on the plea by the five MLAs challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling which had upheld the Speaker's action.

Though at one stage, the apex court was inclined to allow the MLAs to exercise their franchise for the Rajya Sabha elections in which yesteryear actress Hema Malini is a candidate, it later turned down their plea in this regard too.

Gulihatti D Shekar, Venkataramanappa, P M Narendraswamy, D Sudhakar and Shivaraj Thangadagi -- all elected as independents -- were disqualified by the Speaker on October 10, 2010, before the B S Yeddyurappa government took a vote of confidence on the floor of the Assembly which it won by voice-vote amid pandemonium.

"Stay can't be granted. Was there a stay in the High Court?" the apex court bench said when senior counsel K K Venugopal, appearing for the MLAs, during the mentioning time sought a stay of the high court judgement.

The counsel submitted no prejudice would be caused if the disqualified MLAs were allowed to vote pending adjudication of their special leave petition in the apex court. Until then, their votes can be kept in a sealed cover, he said.

When the bench mulled "that can be done", former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, on behalf of the Speaker, opposed any such relief on the ground that it would set a wrong precedent. He said the disqualified MLAs cannot be allowed to vote as it would amount to setting aside the high court order.

"Look at the flip side. Supposing if they succeed, then? What is the problem if they are allowed to vote and the votes kept in a sealed cover? Their votes would not be taken into consideration," the bench said.

Sorabjee pointed out that the high court judgement was passed on Feburary 14 and the MLAs took nearly a month to approach the court at a time when elections are to be held for the Rajya Sabha seat. "We are not suspending the judgement. It's just a procedure to safeguard the interest of the petitioners," the bench said, to which the former Attorney General said it would render the composition of the Rajya Sabha in a limbo leading to an uncertainity.

"There is no uncertainity. People have been elected, they took their oaths, but even therafter, the elections have been set aside," the bench said.

But after the consel struck to the argument that it would not be a healthy precedent, the bench relented and said it would not allow the disqualified MLAs to vote.

On February, 14, the Karnataka High Court had upheld Speaker K G Bopaiah's order disqualifying five independent MLAs who had withdrawn support to the government.
The BJP government later accepted an offer made by the Governor to seek the trust vote again on October 14 and won with 106 votes in favour and 100 against.

On October 6, the five aggrieved MLAs, along with 11 rebel BJP MLAs, had submitted a letter to Bhardwaj withdrawing support to Yeddyurappa. Bopaiah had passed the concurrent order on separate petitions filed by BJP MLAs C T Ravi and D N Jeevaraj, who is also Chief Whip of the BJP legislature party, and a voter each from their five Assembly segments they represented seeking disqualification on grounds of defection.

The disqualified MLAs filed the petitions in the high court praying for quashing of the Speaker's order as illegal, void and not enforceable. During the hearing, the disqualified MLAs through their counsel had argued that they never joined BJP while the rival petitioners submitted that they by their conduct had lost independent character and indeed had joined the party.

While pronouncing the orders, the bench, comprising Justices Mohan Shantanagoudar, S Abdul Nazeer and A S Bopanna, held that the complaints filed by the five voters from their constituencies seeking disqualification are maintainable, rejecting the contention of the petitioners that they have no locus standi.