Source:thehindu.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the Supreme Court is set to hear a plea related to the resignation\n of some MLAs of the coalition parties, a section of legal experts feel \nthat there is a need for the apex court to intervene and plug a loophole\n in the law \u2014 of the absence of a specific time frame for the Speaker or\n the Chairperson to accept or reject resignation of members of the State\n legislature and for deciding on the plea for disqualification of \nmembers in the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
State\u2019s legal experts, who wished not to be named, said this was important to overcome political uncertainty cropping up in the country now and then, like the present scenario in Karnataka, <\/strong>because of submission of resignation by a group of rebel MLAs of two political parties and pleas for their disqualification filed by the political parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal\n experts said that keeping resignation and plea for disqualification \npending for \u201cunreasonable\u201d time will give scope for political accusation\n that the Speaker or the Chairperson is acting to \u201cfavour\u201d a particular \npolitical party or group either to \u201cuse\u201d or \u201cmisuse\u201d the provisions of \nanti-defection law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Courts and the Supreme Court, said a \nformer Advocate-General, have the powers to issue directions to the \nSpeaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chairperson of the \nLegislative Council to decide the plea for disqualification of members \nwithin a \u201creasonable period\u201d so that the object of anti-defection \nprovisions of the Constitution was achieved in its letter and spirit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\n High Court of Karnataka, in April 2018, issued a direction to the \nSpeaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly fixing a specific deadline\n for deciding a plea, filed by the Janata Dal (Secular) seeking \ndisqualification of seven of its MLAs for violating whip, which was kept\n pending for nearly two years by the Speaker, said a former Additional \nAdvocate-General. There are many instances of disqualification \nproceedings remaining on paper without outcome in several States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly,\n the Speaker cannot proceed with the plea for disqualification of a \nmember without first considering the particular member\u2019s resignation, \npointed the former Additional Advocate-General, citing a 2016 judgment \nof the Kerala High Court, which had set aside the Speaker\u2019s decision of \ndisqualifying then MLA P.C. George while keeping pending his resignation\n submitted during the disqualification proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the \nConstitution gives powers to the elected representatives to vacate their\n seats, the Speaker or the Chairperson cannot keep resignation pending \nfor \u201cunreasonable period\u201d as resignations cannot be accepted only if \nthey were found to be \u201cnot voluntary or genuine,\u201d said the former AAG.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Power with Parliament\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However,\n some advocates were of the view that the High Courts or the Supreme \nCourt cannot fix a specific time frame for the Speaker or the \nChairperson as such a power is vested only with Parliament by amending \nthe provisions of the Tenth Schedule, or by amending the rules of \nprocedure of Parliament and the State legislature governing resignation \nand disqualification.<\/p>\n