New Delhi, March 5. Six Congress MLAs, who were disqualified following' cross voting' in the recent Rajya Sabha choices in Himachal Pradesh, challenged their disqualification in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The former MLAs have filed a solicitation against the February 29 decision of State Assembly Speaker Kuldeep Singh Pathania.
These recusant Congress MLAs, who suggested in favor of Bharatiya Janata Party seeker Harsh Mahajan in the Rajya Sabha choices, later abstained from advancing on the budget in violation of the party scourge. The ruling Congress had demanded his disqualification on this basis.
Elderly Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi had to face defeat in the Rajya Sabha elections as a result of' cross voting' by recusant MLAs.
The disqualified MLAs include Rajinder Rana, Sudhir Sharma, Inder Dutt Lakhanpal, Devinder Kumar Bhuttu, Ravi Thakur, and Chaitanya Sharma.
After his disqualification, the current number of members in the House has come down from 68 to 62, while the number of Congress MLAs has come down from 40 to 34.
In their solicitation, the revolutionary MLAs have contended violation of the principle of natural justice and claimed that they weren't given acceptable occasion to respond to the disqualification solicitation.
This was the first time in the history of Himachal Pradesh that an MLA was disqualified under the anti-defection law.
In publicizing the disqualification of the six MLAs in a press conference on February 29, the Speaker said that they (the recusant MLAs) had been disqualified under the anti-dereliction law because they had violated the scourge.
He ruled that he'd cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect, the solicitation to qualify those MLAs was filed by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Harsh Vardhan for defying the scourge that needed them to be present in the House and bounce for the budget.
The elderly advocate Satyapal Jain, appearing for the revolutionary Congress MLAs, had argued that only a' show cause notice' was served to the revolutionary MLAs and neither a dupe of the solicitation nor the annexure was handed. Jain had said that seven days are basically given to respond to the notice, but he wasn't given any time.
The Speaker said that these MLAs had filled out the attendance register but were absent from the House during voting on the budget.
These members were issued notices through WhatsApp and email for violating the scourge and were asked to appear for the hearing.
In his 30-runner order, he said the argument of revolutionary MLAs' counsel Satyapal Jain regarding time being given to respond to the notice wasn't considered as' the substantiation was absolutely clear'.
The Speaker had said that to maintain the quality of the republic and stop the miracle of" Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram," it's necessary to give quick opinions in similar cases. The Speaker said that this decision has nothing to do with' cross-voting' in the Rajya Sabha choices made by these MLAs.
