CUTTACK: The BJD has moved the Orissa High Court challenging Odisha Assembly Speaker Surama Padhy’s decision to reject its representations seeking disqualification of eight party MLAs for allegedly cross-voting in the Rajya Sabha elections held in March this year.
BJD chief whip Pramila Mallik filed the petition through advocate Asish Mishra on Thursday, seeking quashing of the June 19 notification through which the Speaker dismissed the disqualification pleas.
The eight MLAs Arvind Mohapatra, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar, Devi Ranjan Tripathy, Naba Kishor Mallick, Souvic Biswal, Subasini Jena and Ramakant Bhoi had been suspended by the BJD following the Rajya Sabha election.
The election saw BJP-supported Dilip Ray defeat Independent candidate Dr Datteswar Hota, despite Hota receiving the backing of the Opposition and the numbers apparently favouring him.
Mallik had filed separate petitions before the Speaker seeking disqualification of the eight MLAs under the anti-defection law. However, the Speaker rejected them under Rule 7(2) of the Members of Odisha Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987, citing procedural deficiencies. The June 16 Assembly Secretariat notification described the petitions as “cryptic, vague, unsubstantiated” and said they did not meet the statutory requirements for consideration on merits.
Challenging the rejection, Mallik contended that the Speaker failed to adjudicate the allegations on merits and dismissed the petitions over defects that were curable.
“The Speaker ought to have allowed rectification by directing to comply with the provisions envisaged in R-6 of the Rules, 1987,” the petition said.
It further argued that rejecting the petitions merely on technical grounds defeated the constitutional purpose of the anti-defection law.
“Therefore, dismissal of the disqualification petition on a mere technicality, without delving into the substantive allegations of defection, defeats the constitutional purpose and amounts to a dereliction of the Speaker’s constitutional duty,” the petition stated.
The petition alleged that the Speaker adopted a “perverse approach” by giving precedence to procedural irregularities over the substantive allegations of defection. The decision reflected “non-application of mind” to the object of the anti-defection law and was arbitrary and amenable to judicial review, Mallik said.