Speaker’s action on resignations unconstitutional

2. The decision to reject is not only arbitrary, but is also against the constitution and Rules of A.P. Legislative Assembly as well as the past rulings of Lok Sabha Speaker and the Speaker of A.P., Legislative Assembly as noticed below. In this context it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the constitution as well as the Rules of A.P. Legislative Assembly to know the ‘utter disregard’ shown by the Speaker to the legal provisions.
3. The Articles of the ‘Constitution’ which govern the resignations of M.Ps and MLAs are Art. 101 and 190 respectively. Under these provisions, the Speaker had no role or powers to accept or reject the resignations until 1974. This is clear from the language of the Article-190 which is quoted below:

“If a member resigns his seat by writing under his hand to the Speaker or the Chairman as the case maybe, his seat shall thereupon become vacant”.

4. It is thus seen that in the past when a member submitted his resignation to the Speaker, his seat became vacant. There was no requirement of acceptance or rejection by the Speaker. This provision continued for 25 years until it was amended in 1974 by the constitution (33rd Amendment) Act, 1974. Under this Amendment clause (3) and sub clause (b) of Art.190 was amended by adding a’ proviso’. Now this ‘proviso’ confers powers on the Speaker to accept or reject resignations on ‘specified grounds’.
Contd…2/p

5. Here it may be stated that the need for this ‘amendment’ arose when some members in some states were under ‘threats’ of ‘extremist elements’ to resign their seats. So this ‘proviso’ gave power to the Speaker to find out whether the resignation is voluntary and genuine before it is accepted. Pursuant to this Amendment the Rules of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies were also amended. In this context reference may be made to Rule 186 of the A.P. Legislative Assembly which governs the issue of resignations by members. This Rule was adopted from Rule240 of the Rules of Lok Sabha which deals with resignations of members. So both the Rules are identical in all respects. In Rule-186, a FORMAT is prescribed for submitting a resignation by MLAs which is extracted below:

To

The Speaker,
A.P. Legislative Assembly.
Hyderabad.

Sir,

I hereby tender my resignation of my seat in the House with effect from ………………………….

Place: Yours faithfully,
Date:

Rule-186 also provides as under:

“And when a member hands over the letter personally and informs him that the resignation is voluntary and genuine, the Speaker may “accept the resignation immediately”.

This is the rule position which the Speaker has to follow in letter and spirit.

6. Now we may refer to the ‘past decisions’ of the Speaker of Lok Sabha in 1989 when he accepted 105 resignations submitted by Lok Sabha members in July, 1989. These resignations were given to him personally by the members. They were accepted on the day they were submitted to him as shown below:

S.no Number of Date of Acceptance

M.Ps, Resignation

1. 73 M.Ps 24-07-1989 Same day

2. 09 M.Ps 25-07-1989 Same day

3. 10 M.Ps 26-07-1989 Same day

4. 01 M.P. 27-07-1989 Same day

5. 03 M.Ps 28-07-1989 Same day

6. 03 M.Ps 31-07-1989 Same day

7. 01 M.P. 01-08-1989 Same day

8. 02 M.Ps 02-08-1989 Same day

9. 01 M.P. 03-08-1989 Same day

10. 01 M.P. 07-08-1989 Same day

11. 01 M.P. 08-08-1989 Same day

It is thus seen that in 1989 Lok Sabha Speaker accepted the resignations on the same day when they were submitted. So this is a ‘binding decision’ on A.P. Speaker as well as Lok Sabha Speaker too.

7. There is another memorable ‘example’ of A.P. Assembly set by a previous Speaker, Sri. K.R. Suresh Reddy, in December, 2008. In this case 6 T.R.S. MLAs submitted their resignations to the Speaker on 22-12-2008 when proceedings for their ‘disqualification’ were pending before the Speaker. These resignations were promptly accepted by the Speaker on the same day without seeking any outside advice on this issue. It was on impeccable decision.
Similarly Sri. T. Devender Goud, T.D.P., MLA resigned by sending FAX to the Speaker, Sri. K.R. Suresh Reddy, the then Speaker ascertained the fact of the FAX and accepted the resignation immediately. These are two examples when the Speaker accepted the resignations of MLAs without any delay. And they are ‘binding precedents’ on the present Speaker.
Contd…4/p

It is also pertinent to note that in both Lok Sabha and A.P. Assembly cases, the Speakers, who belonged to Congress Party, had acted fairly and promptly in deciding the question of acceptance of resignations ensuring transparency and efficiency. But in the present case, the Speaker departed from the ‘binding precedents’ for the reasons well known in ‘Political Circles’.

8. Rejection of resignations by the Speaker raises an extremely important question of constitutional law affecting the basic structure of the constitution namely the rights and privileges of the members of Legislature, their freedom of speech and expression and the dignity of the Houses. The arbitrary action of the Speaker has resulted in ‘gross violation’ of Art.190 of the constitution and Rule-186 of the rules of procedure of A.P. Legislative Assembly. In such a case any violation of the constitution and rules of the House tantamount to ‘Contempt of the House’. In other words the Speaker is liable for contempt of the House for the gross violation committed by him in this case.

9. In the context of present controversy, we may recall another episode of 139 resignations of Legislators submitted in December, 2009 to the Speaker. These resignations were also rejected after 2 months when the matter reached the Supreme Court. In this episode legislators from both regions submitted the resignations and the number was more from Andhra. But most of these resignations were irregular for several reasons shown below:

(i) Many of them were not written on a Format.
(ii) Some of them were collective resignations written on plain papers.
Hence such resignations should have been rejected on the same day when they were submitted to the Speaker. This is another example where the Speaker deviated from previous decisions of the Speaker of A.P. Legislative Assembly.

10. Then what are the remedial measures that are available to the ‘aggrieved Legislatives’. In my view there are only ‘two options’ open to them as described below:

(i) To approach the Supreme Court for an order declaring the ‘rejection order’ as illegal and unconstitutional; or
(ii) Resubmission of resignations to the same Speaker.

If the matter is taken to the Apex Court, there will be larger focus on this issue causing utmost embarrassment to all concerned. For this purpose a petition by few MLAs and M.Ps will serve the purpose and the issue will be settled once for all.
In the present critical times, the two offices of Speaker and chairman, of the Council are held by persons from Andhra region when the leaders of all political parties are divided on regional lines. For this reason the Apex Court is a better Forum for resolving all issues underlying this controversy.

By,

M. Narayan Reddy, Ex-M.P.
Nizamabad.

Related posts:

1. Decision on T MPs resignation after careful…
2. Nagam’s and Nallapureddy’s resignations accepted
3. T ‘possible’ if MLAs and MPs got resignations accepted
4. Speaker in a twisted situation
5. Telangana witnesses fresh round of resignations
6. Speaker rejects the resignations
7. TDP T MLAs meet Speaker, demand the resginations be accepted
8. Meira Kumar may reject MPs resignations
9. LS Speaker to decide on T MPs resignations by Aug 1
10. Cong party in crisis with resignations