Cuttack: The dispute over alleged cross-voting by 8 BJD MLAs in the March Rajya Sabha elections has reached the Odisha high court with the party challenging assembly speaker Surama Padhy’s decision to reject its pleas seeking their disqualification. BJD chief whip Pramila Mallik filed the petition through advocate Asish Mishra on Thursday, challenging the speaker’s June 19 notification that dismissed the disqualification petitions on procedural grounds. The petition has not been listed for hearing so far.Mallik approached the speaker with separate petitions seeking disqualification of suspended BJD MLAs Arvind Mohapatra, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar, Devi Ranjan Tripathy, Naba Kishor Mallick, Souvic Biswal, Subasini Jena and Ramakant Bhoi. The controversy stems from the Rajya Sabha election in which BJP-backed Dilip Ray defeated independent candidate and urologist Dr Datteswar Hota, despite Hota having the support of BJD and Congress and the numbers apparently favouring him.Speaker 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 June 19 notification, described BJD petitions as “cryptic, vague, unsubstantiated” and said they failed to meet the statutory requirements for consideration on merits.Challenging the decision, Mallik contends in her petition that speaker had failed to examine the substantive allegations of defection and instead dismissed the petitions over defects that could have been rectified. “The speaker ought to have allowed rectification by directing to comply with the provisions envisaged in R-6 of the Rules, 1987,” the petition said.BJD contended that dismissal on a procedural technicality, without examining the allegations on merits, undermined the constitutional objective of the anti-defection law. “Therefore, dismissal of the disqualification petition on a mere technicality, without delving into the substantive allegations of defection, defeats the constitutional purpose and amounts to a dereliction of the speaker’s constitutional duty,” it said.Mallik further alleged that speaker adopted a “perverse approach” by prioritising a minor procedural irregularity over what she described as a serious constitutional issue involving defection. The petition claimed the order reflected “non-application of mind to the true spirit and object of the anti-defection law” and argued that focusing solely on “hyper technical procedural flaws” that were curable made the decision arbitrary and open to judicial review. BJD has sought quashing of the speaker’s notification.
