Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru (SP)

Bengaluru, Oct 24: The Supreme Court (SC), which is hearing petitions filed by disqualified Karnataka MLAs who have challenged the order of the assembly speaker against them, has once again adjourned hearing by a day to Thursday October 24.

At the outset, when the petitions came up before the bench for hearing, legal counsel for the Congress Kapil Sibal, pleaded with the bench to refer this case to the constitution bench of the SC. Responding to the plea, the bench said that this matter can be tackled later once the hearing is completed in this case. Kapil Sibal also requested to postpone the hearing as case relating to violation of code of conduct is pending in the state high court. The bench headed by Justice N V Ramana adjourned the hearing to Thursday.

Initially, advocate representing former MLA, R Shankar, put forth the arguments. Advocate representing disqualified MLAs, Mukul Rohatgi, had not yet arrived at the SC. The judge wanted to know about the whereabouts of Rohatgi. The judges asked the advocates to complete arguments on behalf of the disqualified MLAs on Wednesday itself, and posted the case to afternoon session.

Advocate for JD(S) Rajeev Dhawan, sought the presence of Kapil Sibal during the arguments. When Dhawan pleaded for time to place his arguments, the judges quipped by pointing out that Sibal has been representing them. When advocate representing R Shankar, sought time as he wanted to place more information, the judges asked all the advocates to place their arguments together.

During the afternoon session, when the case came up, Sibal sought the case to be shifted to constitution bench. Mukul Rohatgi, who represented disqualified Congress legislators, stressed that none of the MLAs had resigned under pressure. He also said that the Supreme Court, in its interim order, had said that the legislators cannot be forced to be present in the session and that a time of seven days should be given for them to attend the session. He said that the speaker continued to postpone the date on which the legislators were to be present before him. "We did not understand why he was doing it," Rohatgi claimed.

JD(S) disqualified legislators are represented in the SC by advocate A K Ganguly.