Most constitutional experts yesterday described Gujarat assembly deputy speaker Chandubhai Dabhi's decision to adjourn the house sine die as improper, saying that he should have taken up the no-confidence motion.
Senior counsel PP Rao said: Once the house is convened for a specific purpose, that business has to be taken up. The deputy speaker's decision does not appear to be correct.
Rao added that normally, the House was adjoruned sine die in a situation where there was so much pandemonium in the House that gave no scope for transacting an important business like vote on a no-confidence vote.
Senior counsel and senior member of the Janata Dal went a step ahead of Rao, saying that the governor must now ensure that the vote of confidence he had asked for was sought on the floor of the house and could not dismiss the Mehta government until then.
No action can be taken on a presumption that the group of 46 MLAs recognised by the deputy speaker would vote against the Mehta government unless they actually vote against it on the floor of the House. Similarly, it cannot be presumed that all the MLAs of the Congress want to topple the government unless they vote against it, said Mehta.
However, former attorney-general of India, G Ramaswamy differed, saying that, in the absence of the Speaker, the deputy speaker had all the powers and could act accordingly. Ramaswamy said the Speaker's decision to reconvene the House was improper, saying that only the governor has the power to do so after the House is adjourned sine die.
When asked about the deputy speaker's ruling recognising the MLAs who had initially decided to split as a separate group, Ramaswamy said that the Chair's ruling could only be challenged in the High Court or the Supreme Court if there was any mala fide intent.
In this connection, he cited the verdict of the Andhra Pradesh high court in favour of NT Rama Rao after he had been dismissed in 1983.
The speakers of Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Manipur assemblies have been in controversies in recent years. Last year, the Uttar Pradesh Governor sent the Assembly speaker a specific agenda, which he was forced to follow in similar circumstances.
Manipur assembly speaker H Borobabu was even summoned by the Supreme Court repeatedly in connection of a ruling he gave, after which the then President, R Venkataraman convened a meeting of the Lok Sabha speaker and the Chief Justice of India to resolve the embarrassing issue.
