Speaker of the Legislative Assembly K.G. Bopaiah is not expected to resign and the present 10-day session of the Legislative Assembly is headed for a deadlock given the nature of the stance taken by the Opposition parties.
Sources close to the Speaker told The Hindu that there is no question of Mr. Bopaiah yielding to the demands of the Opposition parties, including five Independent legislators who were disqualified from the Legislative Assembly in October 2010 on the orders of the Speaker. Their membership was subsequently restored after the Supreme Court set aside the orders of disqualification.
The argument put across is that there is no reason for the Speaker to quit, more so after the Union Cabinet did not approve the recommendation of the Governor who held that the Government did not enjoy a majority following the order of the Supreme Court. Prior to this, the Governor had sent another report where it was made clear that the Speaker was instrumental in enabling the Government enjoy a majority and consequently, the passage of a motion of confidence moved by the then B.S. Yeddyurappa Government (in October 2010) was invalid.
The Congress has served a notice, for the fourth time in two years, seeking to move a resolution for the removal of the Speaker. In the Legislative Assembly comprising 225 members, a minimum of 113 votes are needed to oust the Speaker, and the Opposition does not have the numbers. In the event of a division, should the notice for the removal of the Speaker be validated, with the support of the requisite number of members, it will turn out to be another test of confidence for the Government on the floor of the Assembly.
Validity of notice
An interesting dimension to the notice against the Speaker is its validity. While it will be valid for a given session, it turns infructuous in the next session if the Assembly is prorogued by the Governor should there be a recommendation by the State Cabinet at the end of the session. And this is precisely what happened in December when a notice (the third time for the removal of the Speaker) was served at the beginning of the ten-day session and the adjourned session was later prorogued.
Rule 18(1) of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly reads: “A resolution which has been moved and is pending in the House shall not lapse by reason, only on the prorogation of the house”.
It is no coincidence that the Legislative Assembly was dissolved each time a notice was submitted for removal of the Speaker.
In the last session, the notice did not figure in the agenda list following the rules and provisions prescribed under clause (c) of Article 179 of the Constitution and Rule 169 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, which calls for a minimum 14-day period (any day after 14 days) for such a notice to be listed in the agenda. The resolution based on the notice has to be taken up within five days after the leave is granted and it has to have the consent of at least 40 members before it is listed in the agenda.
