While the disqualification of 18 dissident AIADMK MLAs in Tamil Nadu is being compared to the action against some MLAs in Karnataka in 2010, a study of the two cases presents some interesting similarities and contrasts.
In the case of Karnataka, on October 6, 2010, 13 MLAs belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and five Independents met the then Governor H.R. Bharadwaj and submitted letters expressing withdrawal of support to Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa. Four days later, Speaker K. G. Bopaiah concluded that 11 BJP MLAs and the Independents stood disqualified on the ground that they had “voluntarily given up membership” of the party. The Independents were also covered as they were considered part of the BJP on account of their earlier support to Mr. Yeddyurappa. In May 2011, the Supreme Court set aside the Speaker’s action.
In the latest instance concerning Tamil Nadu, the 19 MLAs gave virtually identical letters to Governor Ch. Vidyasagar Rao, expressing their lack of confidence in Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami. In both instances, the MLAs had complained that they were “disillusioned with the functioning” of the governments headed by their respective Chief Ministers,and levelled allegations of “corruption, abuse of power, favouritism, and misuse of government machinery.” They also wanted the Governors to “intervene and institute the constitutional process.”
As for the aspect of retraction, in Karnataka, two MLAs had gone back on their original stand and escaped the wrath of the presiding officer. In Tamil Nadu, one legislator – S.T.K. Jakkaiyan – did not suffer disqualification as he changed his position.
Constitutional process
Mr. Bopaiah of Karnataka and P. Dhanapal of Tamil Nadu invoked provisions of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule (“voluntarily giving up membership of party on the ticket of which members get elected”), while arriving at their decisions. While the former had noted that in the Karnataka case, the dissident MLAs had associated themselves with the Janata Dal, the latter concluded that the rebel legislators were “acting in concert with the Leader of Opposition”.
Commenting on the two cases, a legal expert recalls that the Supreme Court, in its judgment on the Karnataka case, had clearly stated that the constitutional process did not “necessarily mean the constitutional process of proclamation of President’s rule but could also mean the process of removal of the Chief Minister through constitutional means.” The Court had added that the BJP was “not necessarily deprived” of a further opportunity of forming a government after a change in the legislature party leadership.
An official of the Tamil Nadu Assembly Secretariat points out that Mr. Dhanapal, in his disqualification order, had referred to the SC’s judgment “adequately” and “distinguished his action” from what Mr. Bopaiah did in 2010. Quoting the order, the official says the Karnataka Speaker’s decision was quashed since he had “failed to follow all the procedures” required to ensure fair play and his order was “based solely” on documents which were not even given to those facing disqualification. However, in the given instance, the legislators were given “more than ample opportunity to put forth their case” and the documents.
