The Uttarakhand High Court has adjourned the hearing of the nine Congress rebels’ disqualification case to Tuesday after it heard both the sides on Monday.
Senior advocates Dinesh Trivedi and CA Sundaram pleaded in the single bench of Justice UC Dhyani against the Speaker's action, dubbing it as unconstitutional and violation of natural justice amidst objections raised by the counsels representing the Speaker Amit Sibal and Avtar Singh.
Dwivedi questioned the Speaker’s action over disqualification of nine MlAs, saying that the Speaker had violated natural justice by his action.
Court asked the advocates representing the Speaker whether or not the Appropriation Bill known as Money Bill was passed in the Vidhan Sabha.
Besides, the court asked whether the Speaker’s action amounted to violation of natural justice in the matter. The court invoked the Supreme Court’s judgment over 13 BJP MlAs rebelling against former Chief Minister of Karnataka VS Yeddyurappa and asked the advocates representing the Speaker to tell it what their view of the matter was.
It is learnt from the court sources that the advocates representing the Speaker would reply to the questions asked by the court on Tuesday after which the court is likely to pronounce its ruling on the matter.
Notably, the rebel MlAs had moved Uttarakhand High Court, challenging their disqualification by Uttarakhand Assembly Speaker Govind Singh Kunjwal a few hours after President's Rule had been imposed on the State on March 27. The petition had been filed before the single bench of Justice UC Dhyani against the Speaker's action, questioning its justifiability on the ground that it had been taken after invocation of Article 356 in the State when the Assembly was already under suspended animation.
Nine rebel Congress leaders are Vijay Bahuguna, Harak Singh Rawat, Shailarani Rawat, Subodh Uniyal, Shailendra Mohan Singhal, Pradeep Batra, Umesh Sharma ‘Kau’, Amrita Rawat and Pranav Champion. They had, in fact, submitted two different petitions over disqualification in the High Court.
Senior advocate Sundaram argued that the Speaker’s action had been pre-mediated as part of the Congress’s strategy to prove its government’s majority in a truncated house sans the presence of the nine MlAs, thus disqualified, on March 28-the day Harish Rawat government was to prove its majority on the floor of the House as per the order of the Governor.
He further said that the Speaker had neither given documents nor enough time sought by the nine MlAs.
He wondered how the Money Bill could have been passed in the Assembly with as many as 35 out of total 68 MlAs demanding division of votes, a demand that the Speaker had turned down.
He said invoking anti—defection law against the rebels was unwarranted, given the fact that they had demanded change of Chief Minister to check corruption. He said they had neither opposed the policy of the Congress nor had they supported BJP. Till date, they had not formed any party, he added. He said it was true that they had reached Delhi. But it was to apprise the Congress high command of what had happened and also to demand justice from the party’s top brass.
Demanding a change of the CM was not liable to be tagged defection and if that happened it would be a grave threat to a vibrant democracy that had been prevailing in India, the advocate averred. He cited Supreme Court’s judgment over 13 BJP MlAs rebelling against former Chief Minister of Karnataka VS Yeddyurappa, saying that demanding change of CM and raising voice against irregularities is a fundamental right of the MlAs.
Dwivedi in his argument said that it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to prevent falling of a government. He said that his role is limited to conducting the session of the Vidhan Sabha smoothly. But in this case, the Speaker had acted contrary to the norms and acted in tearing hurry to help the Harish Rawat Government to wriggle out of the crisis, he said.