Speaker's Order 'Perverse' - Rebel MLAs Tell High Court

Bangalore, Oct 20 (PTI): Eleven rebel BJP MLAs today told the Karnataka High Court that the Speaker's order disqualifying them was ''vitiated'' and ''perverse'' and their action did not attract relevant provisions of the anti- defection law.

In their contention before a new single judge bench, which adjourned the hearing till tomorrow, the MLAs said Speaker K G Bopaiah's action was based on "conjectures and surmises" rather than any "cogent and clinching material".

The rebels, whose withdrawal of support to the BJP's first-ever government in the south pushed it into a crisis, said their action did not attract the provisions of para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution that deals with disqualification of members of a legislature.

Asserting that the Speaker's order was not based on any circumstantial evidence which was "clinching and cogent", they told the court, "The Speaker has relied not on material on record but on surmises and conjectures".

"It does not make out a case for disqualification. The Speaker should have ascertained the material on record first. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not mere preponderance," senior counsel B V Acharya, appearing for two of the BJP MLAs, submitted.

"They (the 11 MLAs) have never told the governor (H R Bhardwaj) that they supported any other government or any political party."

The counsel for the 11 BJP MLAs made the submission when their petitions came up for hearing before a single judge, Justice V G Sabhahith, to whom the case was referred after a split verdict by a division bench, comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice N Kumar on Monday.

Khehar had upheld the Speaker's order disqualifying the 11 MLAs while Justice Kumar set it aside.Justice Sabhahith, who heard the case today, adjourned further hearing for tomorrow.

Counsel K G Raghavan, appearing for one of the rebel MLAs, submitted they had only expressed dissent which is ingrained in the Tenth schedule of the Constitution.

Referring to the BJP MLAs' October 6 letter to the governor withdrawing support to the B S Yeddyurappa government, the counsel said, "It is an honest expression of an anguish in a manner known to law and the contention of the Speaker that this has a reference to Article 356 of the Constitution has no substance."

All that the 11 BJP MLAs have said was that they don't want a government headed by the "corrupt" chief minister. Their contention was that they are ready to support any BJP government...any leader other than Yeddyurappa.

"There is not even a remote suggestion that we do not want a BJP government". 

On the chief minister's contention in his petition before the Speaker that the 11 MLAs expressing lack of confidence in him tantamount to voluntarily leaving the party, the rebel legislators denied the charge and said their aim was only to salvage the image of the party and the state.

Ravivarma Kumar, senior counsel for eight rebel BJP MLAs, submitted that legislators have a duty not only to hold the government responsible for misrule but also complain to the head of the state in such circumstances.

"It's a case of zero evidence. Disqualification has been done simply on the basis of a complaint and there is not a whisper in our petition that we have voluntarily given up membership of the party," Kumar contended.

In a record of sorts, the Yeddyurappa government had to face two floor tests in the space of four days in the Assembly after the flare up of rebellion by a section of party legislators.

Yeddyurappa was declared to have won the confidence vote by the speaker on October 11 by voice vote, a day before which he had disqualified 16 MLAs, including five independents, who had also withdrawn their support to the government.

Governor Bhardwaj had called the October 11 trust vote 'unconstitutional' and asked Yeddyurappa to face another floor test on October 14 which he won with 106 in favour and 100 against in a truncated assembly.

The high court had stated that the October 14 confidence vote was subject to its pronouncement on the petitions filed by five independent MLAs challenging their disqualification.