The disqualification of five Haryana Janhit Congress MLAs - who had shifted their allegiance to the Congress in 2009 to support the Congress government led by Bhupinder Singh Hooda - comes at a time when that government has almost completed its tenure. This has raised serious questions on the entire political and judicial process, which seems to have conspired to ensure that a 'minority' government was able to survive and rule with ease. A decision was given just about when it no longer seemed to matter. The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave the decision last week, directing that Haryana Janhit Congress MLAs Satpal Sangwan, Vinod Bhayana, Narendra Singh, Zile Ram Sharma and Dharam Singh, who had joined the Congress, should be disqualified for defection. The High Court said that there is no proof that these HJC MLAs had merged their Party with the Congress, and the decision by the Speaker was against the Constitutional mandate. The High Court even said that the decision of the Speaker was egregious, and was not vitiated merely by an error in reasoning. In fact the Order held that the decision of the Speaker was malafide, and meant to ensure that the Congress government could continue. It added that, with four out of five MLAs being made ministers in the government, the entire exercise was a bargain to ensure defection. The Judge asserted: ‘If I say that the decision of the Speaker in the first instance, on November 9, 2009, was against the constitutional mandate, I say so because the letter written by the legislators on November 9, 2009, and the decision taken on the same day, were literally on no evidence produced…..The Speaker, who received the letter from the Congress Party that HJC (BL) had merged with them, did not thinkit necessary, surprisingly, to look for a similar letter even from the leader of that political party which had merged…..’. This matter had been raised by Friday Gurgaon very recently, and it was pointed out that the final decision should have come far sooner, as it impacted the basic validity of the government.
In light of the decision of the High Court, political watchers have raised the question as to whether this Order should be applicable on the government as well, and therefore whether all decisions taken by the government should come under the scanner. Though it is unlikely that the legality of the government's rule would come under question, experts like Advocate Devdutt Sharma say that it is quite apparent that the delay was caused by the government, which used all kinds of tactics to ensure that this case could not come to a conclusion. It is to be noted that the High Court, while disqualifying these candidates, also held that they would be barred from benefits that would accrue to them as representatives of the people. Interestingly, all the five have fought the Assembly polls (under the Congress ticket) this time, which is an issue that should be taken into cognizance, says Sharma. He also believes that cases involving political persons – and specially those impacting key political events – should be time-bound, and special courts could be set up to ensure that no delays take place. Hemant Sharma, another lawyer, opines that this tactic has been used repeatedly in various States, to ‘legitimise’ defections and horse-trading in government formation. The long time taken by the Speaker to decide the case has also been questioned. Kuldip Bishnoi, head of HJC, and the ‘victim’, has hailed the decision of the High Court and asserted that truth has finally won. He has also demanded the suspension of the government, which is now, after the Court’s Order, in a minority. Political watchers however say that it is time the Supreme Court took cognizance of the manner in which an allegedly ‘unfit’ government was allowed to rule a State for a full five years. Legal experts also cite the recent direction of the apex court, stating that ‘such’ cases should be heard and concluded within one year. Satender Kumar, a political activist, recalls that this ‘aya ram gaya ram’ politics is not new to Haryana, where MLAs easily forget Party discipline when they see personal benefit. Taking a dig at the Haryana Janhit Congress, Kumar recalls that the seeds of such defections were sown in Haryana politics by Bishnoi's father, Bhajan Lal, who in 1980switched to the Congress with all the Janata Party MLAs – just to remain in the government. In 1982, something similar happened when the then governor GD Tapase first invited the INLD, led by Devi Lal, to form the government, but in a sudden change of heart first invited Bhajan Lal, who had a mere 35 MLAs, to form the government. Manish Yadav, another political activist, says that action should be taken against the Congress leadership for taking the State and its people for a ride by running an ‘illegal’ govt. Pouncing on the fact that the Court had disqualified the five MLAs, the BJP also demanded the resignation of the Congress government. Kailash Vijayvargiya, BJP election-in-charge for Haryana, says that the High Court decision has exposed the ‘unconstitutional and unethical act’ of Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, who indulged in horse-trading to form the government in 2009. “The Chief Minister should resign immediately as the government has been reduced to a minority. Anyway, the people of\ Haryana have already decided to throw out the corrupt and inefficient Congress government in these polls,” he adds.. Advocate Pawan Saini says that this was a fit case for the judicial process to be fast tracked, to ensure that justice was not denied - as has evidently happened in this case. Saini says that the entire locus standi of the case has been lost, as the Congress government enjoyed power for the full five years, by ensuring that the case was dragged on for that long. How can the case come to a conclusion exactly five years after it started? It seems that it is just because the government has lost interest, and does not care about the result now. The CM will move on, and the MLAs are fighting elections again.
There is a similar case where the screws are now being tightened, almost five years after it was first raised. This relates to the ‘bogus votes’ case’ allegation against sitting Gurgaon MLA Sukhbir Kataria. OP Kataria, Gurgaon-based RTI activist, who has been spearheading the fight in this case, says that it will reach its conclusion soon, as the Congress government will no longer be able to exercise its power over the State officials. Kataria also opines that the case has become much stronger after he took up the matter before the High Court, and requested that the police officials should be made a party to the case. Pravesh Kumar, a Gurgaon resident who has been closely watching the case, says that with Congress expected to lose the polls, the law will soon catch up with the Gurgaon MLA.
Legal eagles say that these two cases show that if an extant government is not interested in the delivery of justice, and gets actively involved in delaying a case, there is little chance of complaints being resolved and cases decided. Doesn’t say much about the independence of judges, does it (even of the High type)?
A few questions
- Should not the judge(s) that investigated this case over the 5 years be probed?
- How was a decision taken so quickly now?
- If it was an open and shut case (as made out by the Judge), what took the earlier judges so long? Or was it just a case of ‘taareek pe taareek…?
- Why should the MLAs found guilty in a defection case, and disqualified, be allowed to contest again? And almost immediately? If they win, why should their election not be struck down?
Read More...