, 39 tweets, 7 min read
#KarnatakaMLAs case going on
Sr Adv Sajjan Poovayya for Anand Singh from INC says while most MLAs resigned on July 6, he resigned independently on July 1.
"I resigned in protest against allocation of 3000 acres. I went to office of Speaker and informed about the same. Was not given the 7 day period. There was nothing against me in the order" : Poovayya
"There are SC orders which state that speaker can be left to decide on issue of resignation, not disqualification" : Poovayya
SC order protects me. If speaker was to decide on disqualification, he should have sought clarification from this court
I was disqualified, without resigning, for not attending the session in violation of whip's call. Disqualification application on July 21, asked to appear on July 24. I was given 3 days, why not 7 days to reply? : V Giri
I got a notice on July 27, asking me to appear on July 24. Notice dated 20/7 was served on me on 27/7 : Giri
I attended sessions on 12th &13th. Intimated that I wouldn't attend on 17. : Giri for AS Balasahib Patil
Giri appearing for another MLA Shankar- As per speaker, I agreed to merge with INC. Then I was asked to furnish the resolution for the same. But no resolution was passed by KPJP. A merger might have been contemplated, but not passed. One party did not dissolve into another
Giri concludes. SG Tushar Mehta begins
SG- no problem if the new speaker takes a call after hearing all concerned
SG : A legislator has a right to resign. Previous Speaker had no option but to accept the resignation
Rajeev Dhavan, for Speaker, objects to SG self appointing himself as Amicus. It's completely improper for SG to say so. His words should be struck off the record
The question is whether resignation and disqualification are taken together or separately.
If together, I prevail. If separate, they prevail: Dhavan
The Speaker has huge powers. Disqualification says resignations weren't genuine. Speaker can't ignore that there were things that were wrong with the resignations: Dhavan
Rebutting the argument that motive of resignation cannot be looked into by speaker, Dhavan says it can be
I find it strange that Aryama Sundaram argued that inquiry for a genuine resignation only means if it is forged or not: Dhavan
Dhavan: They do not have an indefeasible right, they aren't civil servants.

We must look at the chain of events on their malafide. We aren't interpreting grammar.
We are dealing with Constitutional authority, not a Deputy Secretary. Speaker has a duty under 192B: Dhavan
This whole case of disqualification is about motive. Did you act bona fide? Doing it voluntarily is different. Voluntary must be given an interpretation that there was no pressure, no inducement: Dhavan
Speaker knows what's going on in the State and assembly: RD
Where is the mala fide (of the speaker)? Connect it to perversity. Which means no one else could have taken that decision: Dhavan
Simple case of totality of facts that the speaker needs to take into account. Not one of who came first, chicken or egg: Dhavan
They (MLAs) can't say they didn't know the case against them: Dhavan
Judicial review is limited. Based on 3 grounds-
Mala fide
Violation of natural justice
Can the Speaker be dragged to Court under 32 when there is a provision under 226? Your lordships said the same in case of Kashmir: RD
J Khanna- Is it your case that if the speaker passes order under Art 190, he isn't an authority under Art 12?
RD- legislature is the authority, not speaker
Bench and counsels discuss roles and rights of speaker and legislature
Bench reassembles post lunch. Kapil Sibal, for INC, seeks to take 45mins to argue as he is engaged in another matter. J Ramana allows him to argue tomorrow after regular course of matters (tomorrow is miscellaneous day)
Dr Dhavan resumes arguments. Clarifies that out of the 3 respondents in the case, he is appearing on behalf of the Speaker and HD Kumaraswamy of JDS
Dhavan: They expect the Speaker to behave like Gandhi Ji's 3 monkeys- don't see their activities, don't hear of their activities and do no speak about their activities
J Ramana asks whether the Speaker would be compelled to check if the resignation is voluntary or not. Dhavan submits that Rules cannot override the Constitution. 7 days' period to reply cannot be imposed on the Speaker. In the case of Ravi Naik, 2 days were given
Dhavan: A Governor can't ask the Speaker to decide letters of resignation given by MLAs
They say first deal with resignation. Why can't disqualification come before resignation? If I find something against you, I'll tell you. These two things need to be seen together. Their argument of this must come first is to make disqualification infructuous: RD
J Khanna:In a genuine case where person feels he can't agree with party in power, & sides with opposition. What will he do? Your argument would apply equally in that situation
RD:You speak of the conscientious politician. It must be decided as per facts of the case
We're at the stage of inquiry at the moment. Not ruling out the conscientious politician, but the closeness to events must be seen: Dhavan
Reiterates that the two aspects must be seen concurrently
Dhavan reading out judgements to support his arguments on issues related to the Speaker's powers, natural justice & that the converse argument (to that of MLAs) stating disqualification can be seen before resignation is also true
Dhavan submits statement of objections on behalf of erstwhile Chief Minister, HD Kumaraswamy
Details the sequence of events, through media reports, whereby these MLAs skipped meetings despite being told by the party leadership. It doesn't matter when they resigned, it was a collective exercise, submits Dhavan
Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue after miscellaneous matters tomorrow
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Live Law

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!