Order
1. Prayer of the petitioners to amend the writ petition is allowed. Application for intervention filed on behalf of Anil Chacko Joseph stands allowed. Application for impleadment filed on behalf of S/Shri Anand Singh, Dr K. Sudhakar, N. Nagaraju (MTB), Munirathna and Roshan Baig is allowed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties.
3. The issue arising in the case is whether resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly at a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should have priority in the decision-making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the request(s) for resignation.
4. Arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the touchstone of Articles 164, 190, 191, 212 and 361-B and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. We have considered the same. Constitutional principles should not receive an exhaustive enumeration by the Court unless such an exercise is inevitable and unavoidable to resolve the issues that may have arisen in any judicial proceeding.
5. In the present case, having regard to the stage at which the above issues are poised in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, we are of the view that the aforesaid questions should receive an answer only at a later stage of the proceedings. The imperative necessity, at this stage, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before us. Such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time-frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particularly, the no-trust motion against the present Government, which we are told is due for being taken up on 18-7-2019. In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon'ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time-frame as the Hon'ble Speaker may consider appropriate. We also take the view that in the present case the discretion of the Hon'ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon'ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190 read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution.
6. The order of the Hon'ble Speaker on the resignation issue, as and when passed, be placed before the Court.
7. We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or to opt to remain out of the same. We order accordingly.