combine assertedits majorityin the
Assembly.
SiddaramaiahsaidthattheBJP
wasorchestratingthe crisis as a
meansof movingtowardsa “Con-
gress-muktBharat”.However,the
BJPalonecannot be blamedfor the
messthe coalition is in andhasbeen
in sinceit cameto power lastyear.
TheBJPleaderandformerMinister
GovindKarjolattributedtheresig-
nations to thecoalition’s internal
contradictions. “Why should we
poisonsomeone if justdrinkingmilk
is killing him?”he said.
Tensions have been mounting
within thecoalitionever since it
beganits innings. Andthey had
nothingto do withideologicaldiffer-
encesor quarrelsoverpoliciesand
hadeverything to do withthe distri-
butionof power.BJP’S CALCULATION
TheBJP’scentralleadership is ad-
optinga morecautiousapproach this
timearoundin a bidto maximise
gainsovera longertimeframe,and
Yeddyurappa maynothavemuchof
a say in thisscheme of things.
If theBJPdoesforma govern-
ment,evenfor a shortterm,it may
wellprovidethe lastchanceat power
for the 76-year-old Yeddyurappa,ar-guablythe tallestLingayat leader in
theState.Although thecommunity
accounts for onlyabout 15 per centof
thepopulation,it enjoys political
cloutdisproportionateto its strength
in theState.A significantsectionof
the communitycompriseslandown-
ers,moneylendersandagriculture
commissionagents.Theyalsoown
severalprivateeducationalinstitu-
tionsandcontrol numerouscooper-
ativesocieties,particularlyin north
Karnataka.Their social and eco-
nomicpowerenablesthemto wield
politicalinfluenceovervotersfrom
othercommunitieslowerin theso-
cialhierarchy.WHEN10 rebellegislatorsof the
Congress-Janata Dal(Secular) rul-
ingcoalitionin Karnataka submit-
tedtheirresignationsto Speaker
K.R.RameshKumaron July6 and
he refused to acceptthemimmedi-
ately,the legislators lostno timein
approaching the Supreme Court.
Theyfileda writpetitionalleging
thatthe Speaker, in concertwiththe
government, wasfacilitatingtheir
disqualification under the Tenth
Scheduleof theConstitution(anti-
defection law), thereby making
theirresignations infructuous.
TheSupremeCourtbench com-
prising ChiefJusticeof IndiaRan-
jan Gogoi and Justices Deepak
GuptaandAniruddhaBose heard
the rebelMLAsandthe Speakeron
July12.It decidedthatsincethe
issueinvolvedsubstantialquestions
of law,it would continuethehear-
ing onJuly16 anddirected the
Speaker to maintain statusquoun-
til then.ARTICLE 190 (3)(B)
Theissuesbefore thecourt were
clear.TherebelMLAsclaimedthat
theywerenotdefectingbutresign-
ingfromtheAssembly in orderto
seeka freshmandateas theywere
fed up withthe “maladministration”
by the JD(S)-Congresscoalitionrul-ing the State.UnderArticle 190 (3)
(b) of the Constitution, if a member
of the Statelegislatureresignshis or
herseatby writingto theSpeaker,
andif the latteraccepts it, thenthe
seatfallsvacant. ThisArticleis qual-
ified by a provisowhichsays:
“Providedthatin the caseof any
resignation referred to in sub-clause
(b),if frominformationreceived or
otherwise andaftermakingsuchin-
quiryas he thinksfit, the Speakeror
the Chairman, as the casemaybe, is
satisfied thatsuchresignation is not
voluntary or genuine,he shall not
acceptsuchresignation.”
This proviso requires the
Speakerto applyhismindbefore
decidingon a member’sresignation
andnotmechanicallyaccept it. The
rebelMLAsclaimedthatanyelec-
tedmember of thelegislaturewas
entitled, in consultationwithhis
conscienceor otherattendantcir-
cumstances, to resignhisor her
membership of the legislature.
Their resignations,they claimed,
wereon the issueof principleandin
the publicinterest.Buttheydid not
explainwhatthisprinciplewasand
whatpublicinterestrequiredtheir
resignation from the Assembly.
Clearly,disenchantmentwithmal-
administrationwouldrequirethem
to continuetheirmembershipof theAssemblyto seekappropriatecor-
rectivemeasuresin thepublicin-
terest.
The denial of theirright to
resign,theysaid,wasdestructiveof
theprinciples of democracyand
henceviolativeof the basicstructure
of the Constitution.Again, theydid
notelaborateon thoseprinciples
andhowthebasicstructurestood
violated.
TherebelMLAsclaimedthat
subclause(b)in Article190(3)(b)
did not envisage a rovinginquiryby
the Speakerintothe circumstances
pertaining to a voluntaryandgenu-
ine resignation by a member.They
allegedthatthe Speaker,on the ap-
prehension thattheChief Minister
waslikelyto losetheconfidence of
theHousefor wantof a majority,
wasactingin a partisanmannerto
frustratethe willof the House.They
stated thatas there wasno doubt
about thevoluntarinessandgenu-
inenessof their resignations,the
Speakeroughtnotto conductan
inquiry to ascertain these facts.
They also allegedthattheChief
Minister, despitehis government
being reducedto a minority,was
refusing to seeka voteof confidence.
If thatwasso, whichwasnotclear
fromtheirpetition,whyshouldthey
resignfromthe Assembly?Constitutional issues