D.Sudhakar & Ors vs D.N.Jeevanraju & Ors

1. The operative portion of this judgment was pronounced on 13th May, 2011. The full text of the judgment is now being pronounced.

3. The Appellants herein were elected to the Thirteenth Karnataka Legislative Assembly as independent candidates in the elections held in May, 2008. On 30th May, 2008, they were sworn in as Ministers in the Cabinet of the government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, who was elected as the leader of the B.J.P. Legislature Party and was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. On 6th October, 2010, the Appellants submitted separate letters to the Governor of Karnataka stating that having become disillusioned with the functioning of the Government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, in which there was widespread corruption and nepotism, a situation had arisen where the governance of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Appellants also indicated that Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa had, therefore, forfeited his right to continue as Chief Minister having lost the confidence of the people 5 and in the interest of the State and the people of Karnataka, they were expressing their lack of confidence in the Government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa and as such they were withdrawing support to the Government headed by him as the Chief Minister. The Governor was also requested to intervene and institute the constitutional process as constitutional head of the State. On the same day, on the basis of the letters written by the Appellants and others, the Governor of Karnataka asked the Chief Minister to prove his majority on the Floor of the House by 12th October, 2010.

4. On the very next day i.e. on 7th October, 2010, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3, namely, Shri D.N. Jeevaraju and Shri C.T. Ravi, the Chief Whip and the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party, respectively, filed Complaint No.2 of 2010 dated 6th October, 2010 with the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly under Rule 6 of the 6 Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the "Disqualification Rules", to declare that the Appellants had incurred disqualification on the ground of defection as contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. On the basis of the said Disqualification Application, on 8th October, 2010 the Speaker issued Show-Cause Notices to the Appellants informing them of the Disqualification Application filed by the Chief Whip of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the General Secretary thereof, indicating that despite having got elected as independent candidates, they became members of the B.J.P. Legislature Party and also became Ministers and thereby they violated Paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The Appellants were informed that they had acted in violation of paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and it disqualified 7 them from continuing as Members of the Legislature.

5. Having come to know about the show-cause notices from the media, the Appellants through an Advocate submitted a letter to the Speaker on 9th October, 2010, indicating that they had come to learn from the media that the show-cause notices 8 had been issued to them as per the orders of the Speaker. In the said letter it was categorically stated that the procedural requirements of Rule 7 of the Disqualification Rules had not been complied with as copies of the Petition and annexures were not supplied to the Appellants and a period of 7 days to submit the reply was not given to them. A specific request was made to the Speaker to supply the said documents and to grant a period of 7 days to submit the reply. Though the documents were not supplied, the Appellants though their Advocate submitted an interim reply on 10th October, 2010, during the proceedings before the Speaker. It was specifically stated in the reply that it was submitted as an interim reply without prejudice to and by way of abundant caution and reserving the right of the Appellants to submit exhaustive reply.

6. The Appellants further submitted in the interim reply that the notice was in clear violation of the 9 Disqualification Rules, 1986, and especially Rules 6 and 7 thereof. It was mentioned that Rule 7(3) requires copies of the petition and annexures thereto to be forwarded along with the show-cause notice. The notice which was pasted on the doors of the MLA quarters in the MLA hostels at Bangalore, which were locked and used by the legislators only when the House was in session, called upon the Appellants to reply to the notice by 5.00 p.m. on 10th October, 2010, which was in complete violation of Rule 7 of the above-mentioned Rules which laid down a mandatory procedure for dealing with the petition seeking disqualification under the Rules. In fact, even the time to reply to the notices was reduced to the severe prejudice to the Appellants. It was pointed out that Rule 7 requires that the Appellants should have been given 7 days' time to reply or within such further period as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow. It was contended that under the said Rule the Speaker 10 could only extend the time by a further period of 7 days, but could not curtail the same from 7 days to 3 days. It was the categorical case of the Appellants that the minimum notice period of 7 days was a mandatory requirement of the basic principles of natural justice in order to enable a MLA to effectively reply to the Show-Cause Notice issued to him seeking his disqualification from the Legislative Assembly. It was mentioned in the reply to the Show-Cause Notice that issuance of such Show-Cause Notice within a truncated period was an abuse and misuse of the constitutional provisions for the purpose of achieving the unconstitutional object of disqualifying sufficient number of Members of the Assembly from the membership of the House in order to prevent them from participating in the Vote of Trust scheduled to be taken by Shri B.S. Yeddiyurappa on the Floor of the House at 11 a.m. on 11th October, 2010. It was contended that the Show-Cause Notice was ex-

compliance with the rules of natural justice; and

43. The question with which we are concerned is whether by their said acts, or acts subsequent thereto, the Appellants could be said to have joined the Bharatiya Janata Party.

50. There is no denying the fact that the Show-

51. We are next faced with the question as to the manner in which the Disqualification Applications were proceeded with and disposed of by the Speaker.

The Appellants and the B.J.P. MLAs to whom show-

55. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order of the Speaker is vitiated by mala fides.

57. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the decision of the Speaker, as affirmed by the High Court on all counts, and we, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the 63 Speaker on 11th October, 2010 and by the Full Bench of the High Court on 14th February, 2011.

58. There will, however, be no order as to costs.