Minister Amar Kumar Bauri and Hatia MLA Navin Jaiswal completed their arguments before the Assembly Speaker on Friday. Their arguments were based on the provisions of the 10th schedule of the Constitution and to negate that their acts were fitting case of merger, not defection.
Senior advocate Rajiv Ranjan presenting the case for the two legislators, who were among four others had switched to the BJP after winning the Assembly polls on the JVM tickets in 2015, argued before Speaker Dinesh Oraon on Friday, that their joining the BJP was a merger.
“Their arguments have been concluded today and four others would be given time on the next date. They argued that the act was merger and legitimate in the eyes of the 10th schedule. They said that the merger as per the law is all about legislative party representing the MLAs in the Assembly and nothing to do with the party as a whole,” said an Assembly official present during the hearing.
The Speaker has not fixed any date for the next hearing but it is likely to be after festivals. The provision under the 10th schedule fixes consent of two-third of any party legislators’ as a prerequisite for negating the anti-defection strictures in the law.
The respondents have been pressing that the JVM at that time and even before was passing through turbulences. Even during the third Vidhan Sabha, seven of their sitting MLAs had quit the party while one got expelled from the House. The party was being run through dictatorship thus the merger was done as per the wishes of the people and party workers.
They further argued before the tribunal to not to digress on other things but look at the case in the light of the 10th schedule of the Constitution which desires certain number. “Their lawyer tried to say that as per the law at least six MLAs were required for the merger in the case and the desired number was there. The MLAs were well within their rights to do what they did,” said the official. Four other MLAs in question namely Alok Chaurasia, Ganesh Ganjhu, Janki Prasad Yadav and Randhir Singh would be presenting their cases likewise.
JVM advocate RN Sahay had quoted judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Parliament and Assemblies of Bihar and Assam to establish that it was not a merger but defection. He had already submitted before the court citing constitution of the JVM that neither the meeting of the party’s central working committee was called on the claimed date, nor any resolution of merging the party into the BJP was passed with two-third majority, nor it was on the agenda of the meeting.