They told Justice U C Dhyani that they were not against the Congress and only wanted to "clean it" up as they felt that the regime under former Chief Minister Harish Rawat "did not show the party in a good light".
The MLAs, who have challenged their disqualification by Speaker Govind Singh Kunjwal, told the court that they had joined the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and added that they had "differentiated themselves" from the BJP when they signed the memo sent to the Governor seeking division of votes.
He said the CM and the Speaker "are assuming that the government and party are the same" and if this view was accepted then "it would be a death knell for democracy".
"Then no member of ruling party would be able to criticise the government," he said.
Also Read
"Deserting a government or a leader/ Chief Minister (by a member of a ruling party) does not amount to leaving the party or defection. Even under the 10th schedule of defection means deserting the party and not dissent," he argued.
"As Congressmen we continue to say that this government under this CM (Rawat) must be changed. We are saying change the CM from within the party. They (Congress) will not lose the right to form another government under another CM," he said and questioned whether it means that "we have left the party".
(Reopens LGD4)
Sundaram contended that the MLAs had "serious differences on the appropriation bill and that was why we had sought division".
"We had sought division to enforce our right to vote and this was not granted. My demand for right to vote as a member of the House can not be a ground for disqualification and cannot be taken as a sign of leaving the party," he said.
"But removal from party will not amount to disqualification," he said.
He further argued that the March 27 disqualification order has been justified on the ground that the floor test was scheduled for March 28 and this "smacks of undue haste" as well as shows "definite bias" on the face of it.
"Can that (taking a decision in haste) be done? If it cannot be done, then the order (of disqualification) is vitiated," Sundaram argued.
Sundaram said the disqualification order has to go as it was "ex-facie" not made out on the facts of the case, was passed with "undue haste" and the "entire approach" of the Speaker was "partisan" and "in support of the CM". If needed, fresh proceedings can be initiated later, he added.
Regarding the appropriation bill, Sundaram argued that the bill was not put to vote and thus, it was "not defeated".
"Our case is that the appropriation bill was never put to vote and if not put to vote, then it cannot be passed. But it was not defeated," he said.