IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) I.A. NO. OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (C) No. 536 OF 2018

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 1 I.A. NO. OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (C) No. 536 OF 2018 [UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA] BETWEEN: DR. G. PARAMESHWAR & ANR. UNION OF INDIA &ORS. VERSUS PETITIONER(s) RESPONDENT(s) APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED / FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO, HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND OTHER COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED 1. The Petitioners are again constrained to move this Hon ble Court by the present Application as the sentinel on the qui vive to uphold the Rule of law against the brazen unconstitutional actions of the Respondents post the passing of the Order dated in appointing a junior MLA as the pro tem Speaker. The Application also seeks certain urgent directions to ensure that the floor test is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. 2. It is submitted that despite the settled parliamentary convention and practice for appointment of a pro tem Speaker, a junior

2 2 MLA Shri K.G. Bopaiah (BJP) with a dubious and controversial record of passing biased disqualification orders has been appointed as the pro tem Speaker. As a matter of fact, the conduct of Shri K.G. Bopaiah has been severely criticised and strictures have been passed against him by this Hon ble Court. The disqualification orders passed by him were also set aside as being vitiated with mala fides and undue haste in two judgements of this Hon ble Court in D. Sudhakar v. D. N. Jeevaraju. (2012) 2 SCC 708 (para 68 to and Balchandra Jarikholi v B.S. Yedyurappa, (2011) 7 SCC The accompanying Writ Petition has been jointly preferred by the leaders of Karnataka INC as well as JD(S) inter alia seeking to quash the decision dated of the Hon ble Governor inviting the Respondent No.3 to be appointed as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka despite the coalition of INC, JD(S) and others securing a comfortable majority of about 117 seats. The contents of the accompanying Writ Petition may be referred to and relied upon for the purposes of the present Application and the same are not being repeated herein brevitatis causa. 4. That this Hon ble Court has heard that matter in the early hours of and had inter alia directed the Respondents to produce the letter submitted by Respondent No. 3, based on which he staked claim to form the Government in the State. The

3 3 matter was put for further hearing on A true copy of the order dated is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 [Pg. 5. Thereafter the matter was heard again on and a direction was passed to hold the floor test by 4:00pm on This Hon ble Court has inter alia issued direction for conduct of the floor test and directed that a pro tem speaker be immediately appointed to conduct the same. A true copy of the order dated is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P-2 [Pg. APPOINTMENT OF K.G. BOPAIAH AS THE PRO TEM SPEAKER EX FACIE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL 6. It is submitted that in a shocking disregard to binding parliamentary convention and long standing parliamentary practice of appointing the senior most member of the House, the Governor has appointed a relatively junior member of the House i.e. Shri K.G. Bopaiah as the pro tem Speaker (4 time MLA). A true copy of the order dated appoint Shri Boppaiah as the pro tem Speaker is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P-3. [Pg. This is in the face of the admitted fact that the senior most MLA is currently serving his 8 th tenure but has been overlooked. 7. It is submitted that the Petitioners reasonably apprehend that the sole purpose of appointing a relatively junior member of the

4 4 House is nothing but an attempt to seize and manipulate the floor test slated to be held on in the House, pursuant to the direction passed by this Hon ble Court. 8. It is respectfully submitted that there are grave and genuine concerns as far as the impartiality of the present pro tem Speaker is concerned. The said pro tem Speaker i.e. Shri Bopaiah was also the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly from and had allowed the disqualification petition moved by the Respondent No. 3, who was also the then Chief Minister, against some MLAs, in order to save his Government which was subsequently set aside by this Hon ble Court in D. Sudhakar v D. N. Jeevaraju. (2012) 2 SCC 708 (para 68 to and Balchandra Jarikholi v B.SYedyurappa (2011) 7 SCC It is submitted that the Respondent No. 3 in tandem with the Government at the Centre is exercising influence through the Governor of the State to ensure that he sails through the floor test by hook or crook, in absolute disregard to Parliamentary practice and the well established convention of appointing the senior most member as the pro tem Speaker. 10. Further the manner in which preparations for the floor test is being carried out seems to suggest that it is being designed to replicate defections orchestrated by Respondent No. 3 in the

5 year 2008 when he was again short of majority. The same is commonly known as Operation Lotus It is also pertinent to note that a representation has already made to the Hon ble Governor on behalf of the Petitioners requesting him to follow convention and appoint the senior member MLA as the pro tem Speaker to facilitate the floor test to be held on Copy of the Representation is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P-4 [Pg. 12. In these peculiar facts and circumstances it is submitted that the further directions may be necessitated for a free and fair floor test. VIDEOGRAPHY OF THE FLOOR TEST 13. It is submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is submitted that videography of the floor test may be absolutely necessary for a free and fair floor test. 14. In the absence of any videography of the proceedings, the Petitioners would not be able to demonstrate to this Hon ble Court if there is any illegality and will be severely handicapped to apprise this Hon ble Court in this regard. The Petitioners verily apprehend that the floor test will not be conducted in a free and fair manner and therefore are requesting for videography of the proceeding of the floor test to be conducted on PROCEDURE FOR VOTING TO BE BY DIVISION INTO LOBBIES

6 6 15. It is submitted that in a vitiated atmosphere like in the instant case, the cause of justice will be sub-served if the actual conduct of the floor test is directed to be done by a division of persons into separate and segregated lobbies so that the persons in the different lobbies can be counted in a transparent manner. NO OTHER POWER TO BE EXERCISED BY THE PROTEM SPEAKER EXCEPT ADMINISTERING OATH AND CONDUCT OF THE FLOOR TEST 16. It is submitted that pro tem Speaker cannot exercise any power other than what has been conferred upon him in the order dated The Protem Speaker cannot take up any agenda other than administration of the oath and the floor test. 17. The Petitioners also genuinely fear that the said pro tem Speaker would also resort to powers of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to implement an order dated passed by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in W.A. No / 2018, and purport to disqualify members of the coalition. 18. In view of the extreme urgency and the nature of directions sought, it is most humbly prayed same the present Application may be urgently be listed before the Hon ble Court. The Order appointing the Protem Speaker was passed around 430pm on and the instant application is being moved at 630pm on in view of the floor test tomorrow i.e @4pm

7 7 19. The Application has been filed bona fide and in the interests of justice. PRAYER In these circumstances the Petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to: (a) pass an appropriate writ/order/direction setting aside the appointment of Shri K.G.Bopaiah as the pro tem Speaker; and (b) pass an appropriate writ/order/direction appointing the senior most MLA of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as the pro tem Speaker; and (c) pass an appropriate writ/order/direction directing that the voting in the floor test has to be carried out by division by segregating the MLAs supporting and opposing the Motion in different lobbies of the House; and (d) pass an appropriate writ/order/direction declaring that the pro tem Speaker perform only those duties indicated by this Hon ble Court in order dated ; and (e) pass an appropriate writ/order/direction that no other item will be on the agenda in the proceedings on except for the administration of oath of MLAs followed by the conduct of the floor test at 4:0pm as directed vide order dated ; and

8 (f) pass an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the pro tem 8 Speaker to video-record the proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly held on and submit a copy of the video recording to this Hon ble Court; and (g) pass any other writ/order/direction as this Hon ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. Drafted by Devadatt Kamat, Javedur Rahman Advocates Settled by Abhishek Manu Singhvi Senior Advocate FILED BY Place: New Delhi Filed on: GAUTAM TALUKDAR Advocate for the Petitioner