Bengaluru: Hours before the return of former minister D.K. Shivakumar to Bengaluru on Saturday after 50 days in judicial and Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody in Delhi in a money laundering case, the mood in the Congress camp is upbeat with party leaders confident that he will emerge stronger in the long run in party politics.
These leaders stress that the Vokkaliga community strongman has demonstrated his loyalty to the Congress by spurning the BJP's overtures at a heavy personal cost. Some even contend that he could turn out to be a challenge to former chief minister Siddaramaiah, who has emerged as the numero uno in the state Congress sidelining veteran leader Mallikarjun Kharge.
But the former minister could still be hounded by the CBI and Income Tax departments. The CBI has already registered an FIR against him while the ED on Friday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's decision to grant him bail which is likely to come up for hearing on November 5.
However, Sibal said there should be a genuine reason for resignation and the Speaker has to examine the motive for resignation on the basis of the available material.
He said the sending of the resignation in writing, and the Speaker accepting it were the two elements to resignation which cannot be termed as instant and Constitution makers must have known that resignation and acceptance is not a simultaneous event.
“The motive behind the resignation by MLAs have to be determined and it all depends upon the material placed before the Speaker,” Sibal told the bench and elaborated that Speaker is entitled to make inquiry into the resignation, for which information can be procured from any number of sources prior to the act or subsequent to the act.
“They can't argue that subsequent events cannot be considered. It is necessary to find out what the motive is,” he said and stressed that there was a need for the apex court to make an interpretation of the term “genuineness” and the MLAs cannot be allowed to subvert the system and resign a day before Floor test because he wants to be a minister. “Intention, motive of the MLAs must be considered by the Speaker while conducting an inquiry,” he contended. While submission was being made, the bench asked several questions including what if an MLA is resigning because there is corruption, and what if the MLA says he doesn't want to be part of the corruption and wants to go back to the people. Sibal said his argument was not that there should be a bar on resignation but the Speaker will have to decide on the basis of each case.
When the Bench said will he have the view that an MLA, who resigns in protest to a particular legislation should quit politics, Sibal replied: “I would love to see a single legislator resign on the basis of such laudable principles. But I want your lordships to consider reality. Which legislator resigns on such principles?”
He said in the Karnataka case, the electoral process should not stop to protect their private interests. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Kumaraswamy, on Thursday submitted that advocates representing these disqualified MLAs have contended that Speaker should accept the resignation mechanically and this is a “very strange argument”.
Senior advocate Dev Dutt Kamath also supported the the arguments of Sibal and Dhavan.
The Assembly Speaker Thursday told the apex court that he has no difficulty in hearing the 17 MLAs and take a “fresh call” on the issue. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the office of the Speaker, had submitted that under the scheme of Constitution, a lawmaker has a right to resign and speaker should accept it.
“We have no difficulty in hearing them all (disqualified MLAs) and take a fresh call,” Mehta had said and added that a lawmaker not only has a duty but also a right to resign as a member of the House.
PTI
