SC Refuses to Hold MP MLA Parade in Court | India News
While BJP’s offer to put 16 congressional MLA rebels before Supreme Court justices on Wednesday countered Congress’s charge that lawmakers were forced to resign from the party and held captive by BJP in Bangalore, the court He said that “he would proceed to issue the ruling (in the case), once the arguments end on Thursday afternoon.”
Judges D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta said: “We do not want to play the role of speaker. As the prime minister had said he was ready to face the House, we do not want to stand in the way of the legislature to decide who enjoys the confidence of the House. But, our effort is to strike a balance by ensuring that the 16 MLAs are truly free to make decisions as they wish. ”
As arguments and counterarguments between BJP and congressional councils flowed in court, a political drama unfolded in Bangalore where police arrested congressional veteran Digvijaya Singh, five Kamal Nath government ministers, and several congressional MLAs when They attempted to meet with the MLAs of the Jyotiraditya Scindia faction at a city hotel. The congressmen sat in a dharna in front of the hotel before they were taken away. Digvijaya later said he would start a hunger strike, as he was not allowed to meet with the MLA rebels.
Meanwhile, in Bhopal, Governor Lalji Tandon, in response to speaker NP Prajapati’s letter where he had urged the former to “ensure the safe return of the missing MLAs,” reminded him that it was the responsibility of the executive to preserve law and order. and “ensure the safety of all citizens, including MLAs.” “It seems you have addressed your letter to the wrong person,” Tandon said.
The resignation of 22 rebel MLAs has put the Congressional government on notice, heightened by the governor’s repeated directive for a floor test. Of the 22 MLAs, the President has accepted resignations from only six who were ministers, while the rest are pending.
At the SC hearing, leading advocates Kapil Sibal (for Kamal Nath), AM Singhvi (for the President), and Dushyant Dave (for the legislative party of Congress) repeatedly complained that the governor’s directive for the floor test would subvert constitutional provisions on the ‘people’s mandate’ as the 16 MLA are held captive.
When Sibal and Singhvi insisted that the MLAs were elected on a congressional ballot and should be asked to meet with either the CM or the President, lead attorney Maninder Singh (for the rebel MLAs) said there is no law that does that the SC directs an adult to meet someone he does not want. The bank agreed and said, “This is not a child custody case that we will ask you to meet someone you don’t want.” But we want to make sure that MLAs decide according to their free will. ”
Singh and chief counsel Mukul Rohatgi (for BJP leader and former CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan) offered to present them to judges in the chamber to determine if their actions are voluntary. Citing a series of SC trials, Rohatgi said the floor test is the only way to determine if a government enjoyed the confidence of the House. “The only question is: whether the governor’s directive for the floor test, in a prima facie finding that the government has lost majority support, must be followed or not,” he said.
With the court reluctant to comply with MLAs, Rohatgi and Singh said the SC could delegate the secretary general of the Karnataka High Court to meet with the rebel MLAs and determine the facts. “We are not captive. But we don’t want to go to Bhopal and meet the CM or the President, “said Singh.
Rohatgi caused an uproar in court by saying “if MLAs are brought to Bhopal without security coverage from central forces, Congress will hunt them down again with the help of parliamentary police.” Singhvi was quick to take advantage of the mistake and said that this showed that BJP has poached the 16 MLAs.
The bank was reluctant to delegate the Registrar General of Karnataka HC or any Registrar of the SC to comply with the MLA to determine their views. “We are not going to watch MLA interviews on television channels or meet them on camera. It is not appropriate for judges to comply with ALMs or involve court officials in this, as this will lead to unnecessary criticism. ”