Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday sought the response of Odisha assembly speaker Surama Padhy on petitions filed by BJD challenging rejection of its pleas seeking disqualification of eight party MLAs over alleged cross-voting in the March Rajya Sabha elections.Justice R K Pattanaik issued the direction while hearing two of the eight petitions concerning suspended BJD MLAs Chakramani Kanhar and Subasini Jena. Senior advocate Milan Kanungo, assisted by advocate Asish Mishra, made preliminary submissions for BJD chief whip Pramila Mallik, while advocate general Pitambar Acharya, appearing for speaker, sought time to file a response.The court posted the matters for further hearing on Sept 29, expecting the speaker’s response by then. Mallik has filed separate petitions challenging speaker’s June 19 notification rejecting her disqualification petitions against Arvind Mohapatra, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar, Devi Ranjan Tripathy, Naba Kishor Mallick, Souvic Biswal, Subasini Jena and Ramakant Bhoi. 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. The Speaker, however, rejected the petitions under Rule 7(2) of the Members of Odisha Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987. The 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 the 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 petition stated.BJD said rejecting the pleas on technical grounds without examining the allegations defeated the purpose of the anti-defection law. It described the 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.
