In a major milestone in the nearly three-year-old anti-defection case the Speaker’s Court on Friday closed the cross examination of all the witnesses listed. On the final day Minister Randhir Singh and MlA Janki Prasad Yadav appeared before the court to respond to the quarries based on their written submissions.

The court also saw some heated exchanges taking place between the Minister and lawyer representing the JVM when the former persisted that he along with five of his other colleagues elected on the JVM ticket during the Assembly polls and hundreds of party members had merged into the BJP. Randhir Singh also complained that many of their witnesses were disallowed to record their statements before the court.

“He came there with the ego of the Minister and of not a witness of the case. What was required there to talk on the basis of provisions into the law and facts. He reiterated there that it was a merger. When asked whether he is aware of the constitution of the party which requires at least two-third of the members for merging he refused saying it was not shown to him. He even said Babulal Marandi went there meeting BJP president Amit Shah but does that mean he decided to merge his party into the BJPIJ He had no concert answers and just rhetoric,” said RN Sahay, advocate of the JVM.

Moreover sources present in the court said that Speaker Dinesh Oraon has decided to give the complainant, i.e. JVM in this case, first chance to argue the case and merits and then the defense or the six MlAs would be allowed to debate. “The Speaker wants to settle the matter as soon as possible. We discussed about the upcoming Assembly session based on that the next date would be fixed. Chances are the arguments may start before that,” said the official.

Experts say now the case has taken its final turn where merits, Constitutional provisions, spirit of the anti-defection law and context would come for reexamination threadbare. “Chances are all the six MlAs involved would be given one day each to argue their case through their lawyers nonetheless they all have to say the same thing. The final argument would see definitions of defection, merger, purpose of the 10th schedule, merit of the electors’ mandate etc being examined,” said he.