More than a farce

Yeddyurappas travails

Karl Marx once famously remarked, “History repeats itself first as tragedy, second as farce.” The political drama currently being played out in Karnataka has so many elements repeating themselves ad nauseum that even a perspective commentator like Marx, if he were to be alive today, would have been stumped for a pithy description.

As an opposition leader, B S Yeddyurappa was fond of calling himself a ‘born fighter.’ But after achieving his life’s ambition of becoming chief minister of the state three years ago, he is so often being asked to ‘fight’ to save his chair that his fight-turned-plight has gone beyond farcical proportions.

Almost six days after governor H R Bhardwaj sent his ‘special report’ to the Centre recommending — for the second time in seven months — the dismissal of the Yeddyurappa government and imposition of President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution, the Centre is yet to take a decision on the proposal. In the interregnum, Yeddyurappa thought it wise to ferry his supporting MLAs to Delhi and parade them at the Rashtrapati Bhavan to demonstrate his majority.

If the cabinet committee on political affairs finally decides to dump the governor’s report, Bhardwaj will be in an unenviable position. The state Congress leaders have meanwhile rushed to Delhi, to apply pressure on the Centre to sack Yeddyurappa. The BJP, on the other hand, has decided to take the battle to the streets, demanding the governor’s recall. As the sabre-rattling between the opposition and the government continues, the people have become helpless spectators.

An objective observer of the developments could see that Bhardwaj’s justification for dismissal of the government is more ‘emotional’ and born out of an obvious bias. If the  Centre decides to act on it, it is most unlikely to stand judicial scrutiny, besides facing hurdles in getting parliament’s approval.

Bhardwaj has neither made out a case for Yeddyurappa having lost majority nor breakdown of law and order in the state warranting the dismissal of the government. In his brief interactions with the media, he has made claims like people are fed up with a ‘corrupt’ government and that he was duty bound to meet their ‘aspirations’. He may find plenty of people who will agree with him, but these are not legally valid reasons for dismissal and certainly beyond his jurisdiction to misapply the weapons in hand as a governor.

In defence of his action recommending President’s rule, he has floated a new theory of “breakdown of constitutional mechanism by way of subverting the floor test held in the legislative assembly during October last year.” He has also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the disqualification of MLAs and the comments passed therein for his action. 

But, the fact of the matter is, is he a competent authority to take a view or pass judgment on the floor test? Can he recommend dismissal of the government just because of some adverse comments in the Supreme Court judgment against the chief minister and the speaker?

Role of a Constitution bench

There is a strong view that the Supreme Court judgment restoring the membership of the disqualified MLAs is itself contrary to the provisions of the Tenth Schedule dealing with the Anti-Defection Act and it may have to be revisited by a Constitution bench to remove the ‘distortions.’

As Soli Sorabjee, Arun Jaitley and others have pointed out, the 11 BJP MLAs, who did not constitute two-thirds of the legislature party to identify themselves as a separate group, attracted the penal provisions of the Anti-Defection Act by ‘voluntarily’ leaving the party and writing a letter to the governor withdrawing their support to the Yeddyurappa government. Further, they openly hobnobbed with opposition leaders and justified their stand in several interviews.

Before initiating disqualification proceedings against them, Speaker K G Bopaiah had issued notices to them and they were given a proper hearing along with their counsels.

The detailed notification issued by Bopaiah quotes several court proceedings, including that of Ravi Naik vs Union of India in the Supreme Court, to make out a case that the BJP MLAs had ‘voluntarily’ relinquished membership of the party and invited disqualification under clause 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

In a separate notification disqualifying the five Independent MLAs, the speaker had noted how they had acted contrary to clause 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule, joined the government as ministers and even attended BJP meetings and signed on the register.

The ground for disqualification of an Independent member states that “An elected member of a House who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party shall be disqualified for being a member if he joins any political party after such election.”

The Karnataka high court upheld the decision of the speaker disqualifying all the 16 MLAs, but the Supreme Court, however, felt that the speaker had acted in a ‘hurry’ and had not given the members a ‘fair’ opportunity to defend themselves while overturning the high court judgment.

As Jaitley has pointed out the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the events leading up to the speaker’s ruling will have an ‘adverse consequence’ on the operation of the Tenth Schedule relating to anti-defection. There is a clear case for seeking a Constitution bench to clarify the issue, but ironically, since the ‘defectors’ have reaffirmed their faith in the Yeddyurappa government, the BJP may not be interested in doing so now. And that will be a pity.