Political and legal tangle

 In the light of the present political crisis in Karnataka where the rebel MLAs have petitioned the Supreme Court against the house speaker for the  delay in deciding on their resignations, the case has only highlighted the frequent tussle between the legislature and the judiciary. The 16 rebel MLAs-  13 from the Congress and three from JD(S)- have submitted their resignations to the Speaker while the latter was out of station. The rebel MLAs have clearly indicated that they want to bring down the Congress-JD(S) coalition government led by H.D.Kumaraswamy. The Karnataka crisis as it is known, has paralysed the entire administration as greedy MLAs are engaged in a self destruct mode purely to feed their greed and shamed the nation by the spectacle of ferrying the rebels from one high class hotel to another. These MLAs have been elected under their respective party tickets with a mandate to serve people. However, the motive for the resignations had nothing to do with the people’s welfare; instead, the elected seem to have put their interests above people. The issue of resignations does not come into play since there was no specific cause that would warrant such. If the government refused to look into people’s welfare in the constituencies or if the MLAs were not allowed to function, then it would have been a fit case of taking the issue back to the people. In the Karnataka case, the rebel MLAs were only interested to bring down the coalition government for all its alleged ills and return through byelection after being given plump portfolios. The speaker who belongs to the Congress party, has shown reluctance in acting on the resignations so as to enable the government to lure them back. Now two things that should have been within the folds of the legislative is for the speaker – either accept the resignations or initiate proceedings to disqualify them if they voted against their own party government in a motion of confidence. When none of these were effected, it was therefore quite intriguing that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petitions of the rebels. Perhaps the Supreme Court could have waited for the action of the assembly speaker before responding. Since no action had been taken, there was no urgent need to intervene in directing the speaker not to take any action. It would be considered proper if courts hear petitions by aggrieved parties against decisions or actions of the speaker. It may be recalled that in 2007, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Lok Sabha speaker in disqualifying 11 members involved in the cash for-query scam in 2005. In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court said parliament as a legislative body   has all the rights but its actions must adhere to the basic structure of the Constitution and any trespass can be struck down. Courts must act with caution and proper restraint. It needs to be remembered that courts cannot dictate on the government or seek to dictate on it.  The judiciary should act only as an alarm bell; it should ensure that the executive has become alive to perform its duties. Members of the legislature or parliament have been elected by the people and in democracy this is the highest forum. If law makers cannot perform their constitutional obligations, then it would be a great blow to democracy.