‘MLAs resignation were not voluntary’: Rajasthan assembly secy to high court

The 91 Congress legislators who sent their resignation letters in September last year later told the assembly speaker that their communication was not voluntary, Rajasthan assembly secretary Mahaveer Prasad Sharma told the high court in an affidavit on Monday.

“The MLAs individually in person urged (speaker CP Joshi) to withdraw their resignations by clearly mentioning that the resignation submitted by them were not voluntary.” the affidavit said.

HT has reviewed a copy of the affidavit filed in response to a petition by deputy leader of the opposition Rajendra Rathore.

91 Congress MLAs submitted their resignation letters to the assembly speaker three months ago on September 25 protesting against any move to make former state deputy Sachin Pilot the chief minister of Rajasthan. Following this, Rathore submitted a public interest litigation (PIL) before the high court on September 25 last year, citing inaction by the speaker in deciding on the resignations.

Also Read: Gandhinagar court convicts Asaram Bapu in woman disciple rape case

Sharma argued that the MLAs voluntarily withdrew their resignations and termed the petition seeking acceptance of the resignations as “premature” as the speaker was yet to decide on the issue.

“It was the fifth time the issue was listed before the high court’s bench. A 90-page reply was submitted by the assembly secretary, which has revealed sensational facts that ‘the resignations were not made voluntarily,’ which means that it was done under pressure,” Rathore argued.

The reply by the assembly secretary also states that six MLAs, including chief whip Mahesh Joshi, deputy whip Mahendra Choudhary, independent MLA Sanyam Lodha, ministers Shanti Dhariwal and Ram Lal Jat, and MLA Rafiq Khan collectively handed-over resignation of 81 MLAs.

He said the reply also “...mentions the name of five MLAs who are trying to please both the factions (CM Ashok Gehlot’s and his former deputy Sachin Pilot’s) by submitting a photocopy of the resignation, instead of the original”. “Now a final argument will be done on February 13,” he added.

Also Read: UP anti-terror court hands death penalty to convict in Gorakhnath temple attack

According to Sharma, of the 81 MLAs, resignations submitted by Amit Chachan, Gopal Lal Meena, Chetan Singh Choudhary, Danish Abrar and Suresh Tak were not original but photocopies of their resignation letters.

“As per the state assemblies rules, the resignations cannot be accepted until they are found genuine and voluntary. The way the MLAs didn’t present the resignation in person, with six MLAs submitting resignations collectively, and five submitting photocopies, shows that the decision needs to be done after complete satisfaction so that none of the members gets deprived of the House membership,” the submission by assembly secretary said.

Meanwhile, objecting to the PIL filed by Rathore, assembly speaker CP Joshi on Monday submitted in the court that the PIL appears to be a ‘publicity-oriented litigation’ instead of a public interest litigation.

Submitting the relevant documents, the speaker on the maintainability of the PIL stated that ‘the petitioner (Rathore), who appeared in person and filed the PIL has cast aspersions on the speaker without there being any material in support of the same.

“The instant writ petition filed under the garb of PIL has been filed with ulterior motive and the same is evident from the fact that the petitioner belongs to a particular group to which the MLAs do not belong. It is evident from the facts and circumstances that the PIL is filed merely to gain publicity without any iota of proof to support the allegations. Therefore it is a fit case to crush at the threshold,” stated the reply submitted before the bench of chief justice Pankaj Mittal and justice Shubha Mehta.

The bench also sought the original letter of resignation of 81 MLAs and the process adopted in connection with resignation letters, the application of withdrawal by MLAs, and the cancellation of resignation by the speaker. The court had sought relevant documents by January 30.

Also Read: Rajasthan Congress MLAs begin withdrawing resignations ahead of HC hearing

Prateek Kasliwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the speaker submitted: “We have filed our preliminary objections on the maintainability of the writ petition. Primarily, the relief sought by the petitioner has already been granted as the speaker has decided the fate of the resignations on January 13 rendering the petition infructuous. Inter-alia the objections raised are that the petition is not a PIL but a ‘politically interested litigation/publicity interest litigation’.

“Apart from the above mentioned, it was also contended that the petition was premature as the question of resignation was pending before the speaker at the time when the petition was filed and the speaker has to decide the resignation by checking if the same is voluntary and genuine,” he said.

Ipso facto, merely filing the resignation cannot be considered genuine, and as per the constitution, mandate inquiry has to be done to check the veracity of the concerned resignations, said Kasliwal.