As the Supreme Court is set to hear a plea related to the resignation of some MLAs of the coalition parties, a section of legal experts feel that there is a need for the apex court to intervene and plug a loophole in the law — of the absence of a specific time frame for the Speaker or the Chairperson to accept or reject resignation of members of the State legislature and for deciding on the plea for disqualification of members in the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution.
State’s legal experts, who wished not to be named, said this was important to overcome political uncertainty cropping up in the country now and then, like the present scenario in Karnataka, because of submission of resignation by a group of rebel MLAs of two political parties and pleas for their disqualification filed by the political parties.
‘Unreasonable time’
Legal experts said that keeping resignation and plea for disqualification pending for “unreasonable” time will give scope for political accusation that the Speaker or the Chairperson is acting to “favour” a particular political party or group either to “use” or “misuse” the provisions of anti-defection law.
The High Courts and the Supreme Court, said a former Advocate-General, have the powers to issue directions to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chairperson of the Legislative Council to decide the plea for disqualification of members within a “reasonable period” so that the object of anti-defection provisions of the Constitution was achieved in its letter and spirit.
The High Court of Karnataka, in April 2018, issued a direction to the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly fixing a specific deadline for deciding a plea, filed by the Janata Dal (Secular) seeking disqualification of seven of its MLAs for violating whip, which was kept pending for nearly two years by the Speaker, said a former Additional Advocate-General. There are many instances of disqualification proceedings remaining on paper without outcome in several States.
Similarly, the Speaker cannot proceed with the plea for disqualification of a member without first considering the particular member’s resignation, pointed the former Additional Advocate-General, citing a 2016 judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had set aside the Speaker’s decision of disqualifying then MLA P.C. George while keeping pending his resignation submitted during the disqualification proceedings.
As the Constitution gives powers to the elected representatives to vacate their seats, the Speaker or the Chairperson cannot keep resignation pending for “unreasonable period” as resignations cannot be accepted only if they were found to be “not voluntary or genuine,” said the former AAG.
‘Power with Parliament’
However, some advocates were of the view that the High Courts or the Supreme Court cannot fix a specific time frame for the Speaker or the Chairperson as such a power is vested only with Parliament by amending the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, or by amending the rules of procedure of Parliament and the State legislature governing resignation and disqualification.
