The issue in the matter is whether resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly at a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should have priority in the decision making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the request(s) for resignation.
Arguments made by the learned counsels for the parties are based on the touchstone of Articles 164, 190, 191,212 and 361B and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
In the present case, having regard to the stage at which the above issues are poised, the imperative necessity, at this stage, is to maintain the constitutional balance. The Court observed that such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particularly, the no-trust motion against the present Government, which is to be taken up on18th July, 2019.
The court held that in these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order. According to the SC such order should be to permit the Hon’ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon’ble Speaker may consider appropriate.
The Court is also of the view that in the present case the discretion of the Hon’ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon’ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190 read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution.
The court has ordered accordingly.