Most Unconstitutional Speaker – K.R.Ramesh Kumar by Pavithran

K.R. Ramesh Kumar – Ex-Speaker of Karnataka Assembly had become Most Pliable to Treasury Benches with Delay & Denial in discharge of his constitutional duties at the fake end of his career.

Actually, when Kumar was elected as a Speaker unopposed, we had praised him as a good choice – which we are constrained to take back. 

K.R. Ramesh Kumar had proved himself to be the most pliable speaker to treasury benches with his partition behavior and attitudes blatantly displayed in and outside the house. The threats to the Kumaraswamy coalition government were in the offing from day of its formation which HDK himself had admitted in the open forum. HDK and even his father Deva Gowda had shed tears in the public meeting perhaps to gain sympathy to run the government.

In the recently concluded Lok Sabha election, with only 1 MP seat won each by Congress and JDS and all leaders like Veerappa Moili and Kharge from Congress and Deva Gowda and Nikhil from JDS being defeated, there were open revolts from the MLAs of both camps resulting in 17 MLAs – from both Congress and JDS parties including 2 Independent MLAs tendering resignations at various dates – July 6, 2019 onwards – though 2 congress MLAs had tendered their resignations even as early as February 2019 – but the Speaker boasting himself as a man of rule book had become a man of inaction in taking decisions on these resignations till 25th July 2019.

Though there were 15 MLAs resignations pending disposal since long, Great Ramesh Kumar had not debarred them all in one go – but had preferred two days – i.e. 25th  and 28th July 2019  to take decisions leading to installments verdicts -  purely to give a time advantage to the coalition government  for the last minute attempts to bring back rebel MLAs - but nothing concrete happened. In the process Ramesh Kumar had exposed himself as an Unconstitutional Head of the Karnataka Assembly.

Ramesh Kumar had not taken action on the disqualification of 2 Congress MLAs viz Ramesh Jarkhiholi and Mahesh Kumathali submitted in February 2019, but, the petition for disqualification of these two MLAs were revived in the wake of the resignation controversy.

Ramesh was not available in his chamber for more than 3 days for MLAs around 15 – Congress 12 + JDS 3 – to submit their resignations in person.

Ramesh had openly remarked that he was not a postman to sit in his chamber waiting for them to tender  their resignation letters, but, later he had denied his own statement.

Actually Ramesh’s intentions were actually to give sufficient time and notice to Congress-JDS coalition regime to approach those Rebel MLAs so as to save the Coalition Government.

His conduct of Karnataka Assembly in extending without Trust Vote for 2/3 days in spite of protests from BJP was a clear case of partisan mindset and this was going on for more than 3 days with endless speeches by members from Congress and JDS.

Anybody who had witnessed the Assembly Sessions during those days will be aghast to feel that Ramesh had given a free hand to the treachery benches – as it seemed that Ramesh had not conducted the session at all. Ramesh had even said to have aired his anger to Congress – JDS leaders that in spite of many days being given, they could not even get back a single MLA to their side! Such was Ramesh’s pliant and partisan Coalition Govt. Mindset. But Ramesh was proudly declaring himself as an unblemished constitutional head.  

Ramesh had not given sufficient opportunity to the resigned MLAs, as the matter was decided after they were absent on the day they were due to appear. Further the speaker Ramesh appears to have assumed the power to fix a period during which a member will remain disqualified and barred the MLAs for the remainder of the current assembly’s term. No such power is conferred on the speaker by the 10th Schedule to the constitution.

Under the law, the speaker may only declare a person as having incurred disqualification. Unlike other forms of disqualification, the one under the anti-defection provisions is not accompanied by any ineligibility to contest. One who is disqualified may contest in the very by-election caused by one’s own disqualification.

The Hindu Newspaper in its editorial had rightly and strongly indicted Ramesh thus: In an atmosphere in which political loyalties swing like a pendulum, constitutional functionaries appear to be inclined to give self-serving interpretations to the founding law.

When one resigns from the party and his MLA seat, the party could not restrain him to remain in the party and then apply anti-defection law to debar him from contesting election.

Ramesh had later lamented that ‘the anti-defection law are not as of now stringent.’ Thus Ramesh could have realized his mistakes of taking unconstitutional steps relying on ‘self-serving interpretations to the existing law.’

Ramesh will go down in history as the Most Unconstitutional Speaker of Karnatka Assembly in the years to come.