The ugly political drama in Karnataka finally ended with the defeat of the H D Kumaraswamy government on the floor of the state Assembly and the appointment of a new BJP government headed by B S Yediyurappa, who proved his majority on Monday.But the story is not over yet because of the constitutional issues that have sprung up vis-a-vis the decision of the then Speaker of the Karnataka Assembly, K R Ramesh Kumar, to disqualify 17 MLAs who had earlier sent in their resignations.
The MLAs wanted their resignations to be accepted; 10 of them even appeared before the Speaker to assert their right to resign from the House. The Congress and the JD(S) wanted them disqualified as they did not turn up when the Kumaraswamy government faced a trust vote in the Assembly. The Speaker has also barred these MLAs from contesting polls afresh during the life of the present Assembly.
This will now completely upset the plans of these MLAs and the new CM who had planned to give them BJP tickets in bypolls. The matter is already before the Supreme Court and it is likely these MLAs will challenge the Speaker’s decision to disqualify them. Whatever the eventual outcome, there can be little doubt that this has done considerable damage to democratic traditions in the country.
The drama began with the Congress and JD(S) rebels going to the office of Kumar and submitting their resignations. As the resignations were tendered in his absence, Kumar insisted that the MLAs present themselves before him because he was duty-bound to ascertain whether they were under any duress or whether they were resigning from the Assembly on their own volition.
The Assembly rules state that when the resignation letter is handed over personally and the MLA says his action is “voluntary and genuine” (and if the Speaker is satisfied), he has to accept the resignation “immediately”. If the letter of resignation is not handed over personally, the rules give the Speaker scope to begin an inquiry on whether the resignation is voluntary and genuine. He also has the right to reject such a letter. Ten MLAs met the Speaker after the apex court directed them to do so and informed the Speaker in person that they wished to resign from their seats.
Days later, when the Kumaraswamy government had to face a trust vote, the two parties in the ruling coalition issued whips directing their members to be present in the Assembly and to vote for the trust motion. The rebel MLAs, having tendered their resignations, stayed back in Mumbai. Given this chronology of events and the rules regarding resignation of MLAs, the Speaker ought to have accepted the resignations.
Since the resignations were tendered before the trust vote was taken up by the House, the rebels contended that the whips issued by the two parties were infructuous. There was something repulsive about the fortnight-long drama in the state with the rebel MLAs seeking police protection in Mumbai.
The conduct of the Karnataka Speaker is in contrast to the approach of Venkaiah Naidu, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, in regard to resignations. The Vice President received a letter of resignation from Neeraj Shekhar, a member of the House belonging to SP on July 15. The following day, Naidu informed the Rajya Sabha that he had accepted Shekhar’s resignation.
The Chairman called the member and asked him if his resignation letter was genuine and whether he had taken the decision voluntarily. He also asked him if he would like to reconsider his decision. When the member insisted on resigning, Naidu accepted the same “with immediate effect” and asked his secretariat to complete the formalities. He also made a formal announcement about the MP’s resignation on July 16 in the House.
Coming back to the drama in the Karnataka Assembly, it is indeed unfortunate that the people of the state failed to give a clear mandate to one political party or a pre-poll coalition in the last election in 2018. The final verdict left the BJP high and dry with 104 seats and the state ended up having a CM from the third largest party—the JD(S)—which had 37 seats and the support of the Congress, the second largest party with 78 seats.
In the Assembly election held in 2008, the electorate gave the BJP 110 seats in the 224-member House. Yediyurappa had to entice some independents and form the government, which survived precariously for some time. But this was neither here nor there, and there were no easy solutions to the problem.
Following the 91st Amendment to the Constitution, it has become very difficult for parties to engineer defections. So, if a party falls short of a majority by a few seats, the only option available to it is to entice opposition legislators to vacate their seats and contest polls fresh on its ticket.
This is what Yediyurappa did in 2008 and the voters supported the move so that he could have a majority. This came in for a lot of criticism, but this writer is of the view that a few MLAs going back to the people for a fresh mandate is far better than dissolution of the House and fresh polls. It is also a much better option than the shameless defection of MPs and MLAs from one party to another, which was the case until the anti-defection law came into being.
Yediyurappa was hoping to undertake a similar exercise this time too and get the defecting MLAs to contest afresh on a BJP ticket. This has been stymied by the Speaker’s order. We will now have to await a judicial decision. Until then, a fresh round of instability is on the cards and the people will watch helplessly as another government will hobble along.