Terminated JD (U) MLAs move HC against ruling

PATNA: The four terminated JD (U) MLAs on Monday moved the Patna high court against assembly Speaker Uday Narayan Choudhary’s decision. They pleaded that the Speaker’s ruling was “unlawful, unconstitutional and against the provisions of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution”.
Gyanendra Kumar Singh Gyanu, Neeraj Kumar Bablu, Ravindra Rai and Rahul Kumar were expelled from the JD (U) on Sunday after the Speaker on Saturday terminated their assembly membership for their “anti-party activities” and “violation of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution” during the Rajya Sabha bypolls in June this year.They have also been denied the facilities of a former legislator.
S B K Mangalam filed the petition on behalf of the four rebels. “The charges levelled against them do not come under the purview of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution and there has been persistent discrimination in the procedure as cases against five ‘rebels’ among altogether 13 such MLAs were dropped,” Mangalam told TOI.
The MLAs were charged with working as proposers and polling agents of rebel candidates Anil Sharma (a real estate baron) and Sabir Ali in the Rajya Sabha bypolls. With the RJD and the Congress support, the two official JD (U) candidates – Pawan Varma and Ghulam Rasool Balyawi – had defeated the rebels. Altogether 18 JD (U) MLAs, including the four, had voted against the party candidates in the Rajya Sabha bypolls.
However, forest and environment minister P K Shahi, who was earlier the advocate general of Bihar, justified the Speaker’s action in tune with the 10th Schedule of the Constitution relating to anti-defection laws.
“Parliamentary affairs minister Shrawan Kumar’s petition against the four was based on the 10th Schedule of the Constitution,” Shahi told mediapersons on Monday. About their status, Shahi said since the four were no more the assembly members in the current term, they could neither be called ex-members nor avail the benefits of former legislators.
However, Neeraj and Gyanu had served as legislators in previous House as well. So, their entitlement to the facilities of ex-legislators could not be ruled out. Mangalam has raised this issue also in the petition filed in the high court.