The unanimous demand by the Opposition for the government’s dismissal comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying 37 defector MLAs.
LUCKNOW: The unanimous demand by the Opposition for the Mulayam government’s dismissal, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying 37 defector MLAs supporting his government, has found support among legal eagles. Even as the Governor seeks opinion from his legal advisors and explores the options before him, one thing that clearly emerges is that the SC verdict has left no scope for the Mulayam government to prove its majority in the Assembly.
Constitutional experts told DNA the Governor is well within his rights to dismiss the Mulayam government under section 164 of the Constitution as the SC has decreed disqualification of the 37 MLAs from the time they pledged their support for government-formation in August-September 2003.
After the dismissal, the Governor has the option of either exploring possibilities of government-formation till the elections or recommend the imposition of President’s Rule. In the latter case, he would have the option of either dissolving the Assembly or keeping it in suspended animation if he feels there are chances of the formation of a stable government. In any case, the option of giving the Mulayam government an opportunity to prove its majority on the floor of the House does not exist anymore.
“There is no scope now for the Mulayam government to seek a majority vote,” says senior Allahabad High Court advocate IB Singh, who is counsel for LK Advani in the Ayodhya demolition case. “In this case, the MLAs because of whose support the government was formed have been disqualified from day one,” he said.
“The concept of void ab initio applies here,” says senior counsel CB Pande. He explains since the legality of the government-formation itself has been found to be “fraudulent”, the government cannot be given any opportunity to prove its majority. “A fraud has been committed on the Constitution… consequences of that illegality will follow… nobody can be allowed to perpetuate that illegality,” he says. “If a person who is a murderer is later honoured for a good deed, it does not erase his original crime,” he said.
However, there are dissenting voices, too. Senior HC advocate SK Kalia feels Mulayam could be given an opportunity to prove his majority in the House.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}