Cuttack: The Orissa high court on Wednesday sought replies from three more of the eight BJD MLAs on pleas seeking their disqualification over alleged cross-voting in the Rajya Sabha elections in March this year.Justice R K Pattanaik issued the direction while hearing three more of the eight petitions filed by BJD concerning suspended party MLAs – Arvind Mohapatra, Souvic Biswal and Sanatan Mahakud.Senior advocate Milan Kanungo, assisted by advocate Asish Mishra, made preliminary submissions for BJD chief whip Pramila Mallik, who had filed separate petitions challenging the speaker’s June 19 notification rejecting her disqualification petitions against eight party MLAs. Advocate general Pitambar Acharya, appearing for the speaker, raised objections on the maintainability of the petitions.Justice Pattanaik directed the matter to be listed “for further hearing and orders” on Sept 29. “In the meantime, the counter affidavit shall be filed by the speaker, secretary of Odisha Legislative Assembly” and MLAs named in the petition “positively,” the judge said in the order.On Sept 18, Justice Pattanaik issued identical orders in the petitions involving two BJD MLAs —Chakramani Kanhar and Subasini Jena. BJD’s petitions involving three more party MLAs —Devi Ranjan Tripath, Naba Kishor Mallick and Ramakant Bhoi are yet to be taken up for hearing.The controversy relates to the Rajya Sabha election in which BJP-backed Dilip Ray defeated independent candidate and urologist Dr Datteswar Hota. Hota was backed by BJD and Congress.BJD had alleged that the eight MLAs had cross-voted and sought their disqualification under the anti-defection law. Speaker, however, rejected the petitions under Rule 7(2) of the Members of Odisha Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987.Assembly secretariat, in its notification, described BJD petitions as “cryptic, vague, unsubstantiated” and said they did not satisfy the statutory requirements for consideration on merits.Challenging the decision, Mallik has sought quashing of the notification and reconsideration of the disqualification pleas on merits. She contended that speaker should have allowed the party to rectify procedural defects instead of rejecting the petitions outright. “The speaker ought to have allowed rectification by directing to comply with the provisions envisaged in R-6 of the Rules, 1987,” the petitions stated.BJD further argued that rejecting the pleas on technical grounds without examining the allegations defeated the purpose of the anti-defection law.It described Speaker’s approach as “perverse” and alleged “non-application of mind to the true spirit and object of the Anti-Defection law”, contending that the alleged procedural shortcomings were curable.
