Justice Shantanagoudar recuses from disqualified Karnataka MLAs case

The judge, who hails from the State, says his conscience does not allow him to hear the pleas

Supreme Court of India. File

The Supreme Court hearing of petitions filed by several disqualified MLAs from Karnataka challenging their ouster from the State Assembly by former Speaker Ramesh Kumar under the anti-defection law was a non-starter on Tuesday, with one of the judges on the Bench, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, recusing from the case.

Justice Shantanagoudar said his conscience did not allow him to hear the case. He hails from Karnataka. The Bench was led by Justice N.V. Ramana and also comprises Justice Ajay Rastogi.

On the insistence of senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the former legislators, another Bench will hear the case on next Monday.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the former Speaker, urged Justice Shantanagoudar to stay on. However, after a brief discussion later among the judges on the Bench, Justice Ramana, who is the lead judge, said Justice Shantanagoudar was firm in his decision to bow out.

Separate petitions

The former legislators, including Pratapgouda Patil and A.H. Vishwanath, had approached the apex court jointly and separately.

Their separate petitions have arraigned the then Speaker, the State of Karnataka, Congress Legislature Party leader Siddaramaiah, State Congress president Dinesh Gundurao and former Karnataka Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy as respondents.

The petitioners urged the court to set aside the former Speaker’s decision to disqualify them from the Assembly.

“The petitioners have a fundamental right under Article 19 to carry on any trade, business and profession. Their right to resign from the post of MLA and carry on any vocation of their choice including public service cannot be denied by the Respondent Speaker by a completely illegal and unconstitutional order. The action of the Speaker is thus in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21,” they argued.

They have also challenged the then Speaker’s conclusion that their resignations were neither voluntary nor genuine. The legislators asked the apex court to call for the records of the proceedings pertaining to their resignation and disqualification.

The legislators argued that the disqualification order under the Tenth Schedule was not in consonance with the Rules 6 and 7 of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules of 1986.

They said the actions of the former Speaker were wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Besides, they argued, that not only had they submitted their resignations on July 6, they repeated the act by coming in person again on July 11 before the Speaker to submit their resignations.

Under Article 190 of the Constitution read with Rule 202 of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, a member can deliver resignation signed in his own hand and the Speaker is only to satisfy himself about genuineness and voluntariness of the resignation, they contended

The legislators further blamed the former Speaker of adopting a “pick-and-choose” policy.

The petitions said the then Speaker had slipped out of his office when the legislators went to tender their resignations on July 6. The Speaker did not comply when the Supreme Court, on July 11, asked him to decide the resignations on the same day. The floor test, which was supposed to be held on July 18, was unduly delayed.