Sandesh Prabhudesai
17 September 1998
How do you look at the whole 40-day episode, which ultimately resulted in the high court passing serious strictures against you ?
I am still convinced about my action of disqualifying all the ten members of the Goa Rajiv Congress, led by chief minister Dr Wilfred de Souza. My judgement was as per the letter and spirit of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. I have not interpreted it wrongly. I had no bias of any kind in my mind.
Do you mean to say that the order of the Bombay high court, which set aside your disqualification order, was wrong ?
Well, being the constitutional authority, it is not fair on my part to pass any comments on the other constitutional authority, the judiciary. My order was based on the documents placed before me, arguments made from both the sides and the various rulings given earlier.
Let me tell you frankly, I was given only one letter by the GRC, asking for a separate sitting since they had split from the Congress and formed another group. During the hearing, I was neither provided with a copy of the letter submitted to the governor nor I was informed by anybody that the split had also taken place in the original Congress party.
The court in its judgement made one more observation : being member of the Congress, I should have known that two of the GRC members were the AICC members and five Goa PCC members. How can I give my judgement just because I was witness to something like this ? Can the judge punish the murderer just because he has personally seen him committing murder ? And if so, why was it not brought to my notice during the hearing by the GRC's counsels ? I believe that the high court passed a different judgement than mine only because these facts were brought to the notice of the learned judges of the high court.
But the high court has also stated that the speaker, being the head of the legislature, need not know whether the original party has split or not .....
I don't agree with it. The anti-defection act is very clear about it. Why is it then mentioned in the act that split in the original party, besides the legislature party, is necessary ?
Why have you challenged it in the Supreme Court if the high court judgement is based on totally different documents, which were not submitted before you ?
I am not challenging it. The Congress legislators have challenged it. I would be party to it, only to seek justice on the allegations made against me that I was bias, partisan, had malafide intentions, denied natural justice etc etc.
Do you think it is proper on the part of the judiciary to pass strictures or make observations on the conduct of the legislative head, which is another constitutional authority ?
Precisely this is the attitude I am worried about, for which I am seeking justice in the apex court of the country. Otherwise, it would set a wrong precedence in the country, which may harm the foundation of our democracy. I am confident that I would get justice in the supreme court.
Do you mean to say that the high court judges should have behaved in a matured manner while passing the judgement on your disqualification order ?
No comments. They have done their job. Let me do mine.
The high court has also struck down your order of granting ex-parte ad-interim relief to the Congress petitioners by restraining the GRC members from entering the House. Why are you not challenging this order ?
I am not challenging anything. I will just make my side clear to the highest judicial authority of the country. Secondly, the high court itself has made it clear that the speaker is empowered to pass ex-parte ad-interim relief. In fact, I wanted to give personal hearing to the GRC members on 28 July, before passing my order. But by mistake, the date was published as 28 August. I had then no other option than passing the ex-parte order.
But why did you make them victim for your mistake ? Even the court said it was a hasty decision.
It was not. In fact, I was prima facie convinced that the GRC members had committed illegality, when I read the petition filed by the Congress. The high court feels that my judgement was passed with malafide intention, due to which it was struck down, as I understand it. I would definitely clarify my position in this regard before the Supreme Court.
Then why was it passed so hastily if you really wanted to give de Souza and his colleagues personal hearing ? Were you afraid that then chief minister Pratapsing Rane would lose the confidence vote on 28 July if they were allowed to enter the House ?
Definitely not. I was more worried about the illegality, which I did not want to allow to continue. Secondly, I did not know that the governor would tell Mr Rane to seek confidence vote. I passed my order at 12 noon and I received intimation from the governor regarding the confidence vote at 2 pm, half an hour before the House assembled.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Your Comments Please
