Karntaka Political Crisis: A Case for Judicial Economy?
The state of Karnataka is suffering from a political turmoil and is on the verge of calling a floor test for deciding the majority of the JD (S) and INC coalition government led by CM Mr. HD Kumaraswamy. The SC on July 17 passed an interim order in Pratap Gouda Patil & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.[1] changing the landscape of discourse on the political crisis.
What’s the matter?
On July 8, 21 MLAs of the State Legislative Assembly gave their resignation letter to the Assembly Speaker Mr. Ramesh Kumar; however the Speaker rejected resignation of those of MLAs citing improper format of resignation letter. The requisite of the resignation letter is that it must be drafted in the official format, must be brief not containing the reason for resignation and must not be tendered under coercion. More so, the letter if submitted via electronic means must be thoroughly assessed to ascertain doubts over veracity of the content.
Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India provides for the procedure for resignation of member of State legislature whereby it must be addressed to the Speaker and he may reject if he finds by way of inquiry/information that such resignation is involuntary. The Guwahati High Court in 2016 held that such inquiry is not mandatory but advisable.[2] The interesting point to note is that defection proceedings under Schedule 10 of Constitution were pending against 2 of the 10 MLAs who approached the SC by way of writ petition challenging the delay by Speaker to accept the resignations.
The Order of Supreme Court
The question of law placed before the SC was whether resignation of MLAs earlier than petitions for their defection disqualification should have priority in the decision making process over resignation. The SC on July 17 “to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights” passed an interim order in favor of the rebel MLAs. The three-judge coram led by CJI Just. Ranjan Gogoi succinctly held that the Speaker should be given flexibility to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190 r/w. Rule 202 Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly, thereby allowing the MLAs alternative of opting out of the legislative proceedings.
A-O-R Mukul Rohtagi arguing on behalf of the rebel MLAs contested that “the proviso added to Article 190(3) is added as a security and in benefit of MLA and not against him.” It was further contended that the bar to jurisdiction of courts under Article 212 of the Constitution is not applicable in instant case as resignation doesn’t come within legislative proceedings. A-O-R AM Singhvi representing the State Government argued that “the founding fathers of Constitution did not envisage the 10th schedule and was subsequently added so that resignations don’t become an escape route to disqualification.”
The Way Forward?
The floor test as observed in the SC order on 17 July was scheduled to take place on 18 July at the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly; however there have been rumors of MLAs being kidnapped, thereby delaying the floor test.
The moot point; however, lies in the discussion that the SC again had the opportunity of exercising its judicial mind and interpreting the provisions of Constitution of which it has been severally accused of overreaching the interpretation. The SC applied judicial economy and maintained the balance between making and interpreting law by providing flexibility to the Speaker on accepting the resignations.
[1] W.P. (Civil) No. 872 of 2019.
[2] Wanglam Sawin, MLA & Another v. The Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, W.P. (Civil) No. 6193 of 2015.
Submitted By-
Urmil Shah
Student
Reporter, INBA