The SupremeCourt is currently hearing the petition filed by 15 rebel Congress-JD(S) MLAs against Karnataka Assembly Speaker #KRRameshKumar for deliberately delaying the acceptance of their resignations.
The court will examine the "weighty" constitutional issues in the resignation and disqualification of 15 rebel MLAs.
ಅತೃಪ್ತ ಶಾಸಕರ ಅರ್ಜಿ ವಿಚಾರಣೆ - ಅತೃಪ್ತರ ಶಾಸಕರ ಪರ ವಕೀಲ ಮುಕುಲ್ ರೋಹ್ಟಗಿ ವಾದ
11.16 am: Rebel insist they don’t want to continue as MLA
11.17 am: Resignation once moved has to be decided on merits notwithstanding the pendency of disqualification proceeding, say rebel MLAs. There is a vote of confidence in assembly and rebel MLAs may be forced to follow whip despite resigning, Rohatgi adds.
11.18 am: Speaker has to see if the resignation is voluntary or not, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, a lawyer for rebels, tells SC. Rohatgi says, There is a vote of confidence in assembly and rebel MLAs may be forced to follow whip despite resigning.
11.25 am: Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said there's nothing to show they have met BJP members and are joining a different party. Disqualification proceedings are only an attempt to stall the resignation.
11.32 am: Punishment under disqualification is only that he cannot hold a post of a minister, if I'm disqualified I can contest a by-election and come back to the assembly from another party. This is not a disqualification under the RP Act, there is no criminal case against me. I don't face any bar from contesting the election, Mukul Rohatgi tells SC
11.34 am: Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi tells Supreme Court that Article 190 was amended only to ensure that nobody puts a gun to an MLAs head and forces them to resign
11.42 am Rohatgi while explaining the differences in consequences of resignation and disqualification said, "One important aspect being that on resignation, the MLA can join other party, contest by-elections and become Minister."
11.45 am: Mukul Rohatgi tells SC that resignation does not require any inquiry unless the speaker has credible material that there is coercion.
CJI said, "We cannot be considering the decision on how the speaker is to decide on resignation or disqualification. We only have to see whether there is the constitutional obligation on the speaker to decide disqualification or resignation one before the other."