It is stated that speaker cannot rule disqualification for the full term of the assembly. In my view, if this is to be conceded the speaker can terrify the MLAs frequently.
in sports, no player can play out of boundary. But politics is the only game -where people can go out of boundary( disqualify) and again enter in boundary ( got qualified now) and play full match- kudos Amit Shah plus SC. if there can be match fixing in games is there no match fixing in BJP? w why then send out players and never qualify to enter - even if they appeal in SC- will now SC allow match fixing in games?
Neither a president nor a governor has right in placing an assembly before citizens. Forget about SC judges- now we find even president and governor is making a choice of an assembly in every indian state- oops Maharashtra- this is total break down of Constitution- this judgement by SC judge was much expected otherwise why should amit shah managed to bribe those 17 MLAs
what is need of speaker now- if SC judges can bring back MLAs back in assembly again? Has SC seen how these MLAs was running with help of Yeddu''s Personal secretary in flight and reaching Mumbai this is super emergency where speaker ruling is left to choice of a SC judge. Senseless judges who do not honour an assembly functioning or for that matter a Speaker post.
SC is zero in assembly proceedings let them remain zero and not become hero by giving BJP an upper hand now people are laughing at this judgement what happened to anti-defection law as prescribed by Speaker note- who is above speaker note- Nobody
senseless judgement - how SC monitors assembly-now no need of speaker post - a supreme court judge can qualify MLAs or even diqualify. IF judges argue with Speaker ruling- how a speaker can give his verdict? Speaker under rule of assembly can often disqualify members for whole term- what is the meaning of such rules in assembly?
now a days even SC judges are in full control by modi and shah. enjoy modi and shah but people no jobs
judges do not run assembly. there is a rule in assembly that a speaker can disqualify MLA for whole term just to keep in order that for these 17 rebel MLAS assembly was dislodged. Now the karanataka govt is in functioning - it does not need support of cheating MLAs at all but then SC upholds such cheating, treachery, horse trading etc but downplays a speaker''s order. Very black day in democracy. If MLAs pull down assembly, does it not affect the people or honour the people. Even SC judges now want to support corrupt mlas because they have a lot of work in Karnataka to make more money now- corruption is in genes of Yeddy and BJP - thank you SC for supporting corruption
Jagdip Vaishnav (Mumbai)
This disqualification of defectors decision shall finally harm BJP
GOOD NEWS FOR BJP AND YEDDY AND A BIG RELIEF FOR THE DISQUALIFIED MLA''S
senseless judgement does not have any impact on any one.
Now bjp would bribe 50 Plus crore each in opposition party MLA''s to resign and bring magic figure from 145 to below 120 in Maharashtra and would loot public money in billions,,, what Supreme Court would then,,, once MLA resign for political gain should be barred for six years from contesting any election,,,
Defintely the loot if any will be less than what JDU and congress were doing.
JDU is alliance partner of BJP in Bihar,,, You are right JDU and BJP both are looting bihar,
Vedantham Sheshashar (Bangalore)
There is no mention of applicability of Anti-defection law in the court proceedings, though these MLAs were rebels. Speaker had disqualified them for the term of this house, as per anti-defection law.
Some times it is very difficult for the common man to understand court judgements. While on the one part the disqualification is upheld, there is no consequence of disqualification as per Anti-defection law.
Not the right decision by SC. These MLAs were elected from party A, then resigned to topple their own party. These MLAs should have been debarred for life. Speaker was right and within his powers to disqualify these ayaa ram and gaya ram type MLAs. What has SC done to uphold the morality here?
The court took cognizance of the unique case of "crying Chief minister" and have thought they were right in bringing down the sad CM.
Copyright © 2020 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service