Sandesh Prabhudesai
17 September 1998
The speaker is always a politician, who may not necessarily have any legal knowledge or legal experience in rightly interpreting the law, unlike the learned judges. Whose verdict, do you feel, should be respected in such a situation ?
I don't agree with you. The speaker always has the backing of experienced legal experts in the legislature department, who can assist him in interpreting the law in a right spirit.
But what if these bureaucrats misguide the speakers, having vested interest in their mind ?
Well, it can happen if the speaker is not in a position to apply his own mind at all. But you do not require to be a lawyer or the judge to understand or interpret the Tenth Schedule. It is simple, clear and not vague at all.
Why the judiciary then made allegations against you, while striking down your judgements ?
That's what my question is, for which I am seeking justice in the higher court now. Secondly, the court has simply accepted the allegations made by the petitioners.
You mean to say that lawyers misguided the court or the judges were bias ?
I don't want to comment anything on it right now. I have full faith in judiciary and expect a right decision from the supreme court.
Don't you think the speaker, being a politician and belonging to the ruling party, would be more bias while deciding on cases of disqualification ?
He need not be bias, though it is a fact that the speaker cannot do away with his party affiliation. In India, we need to adopt the British system, where no party fields its candidate in the speaker's constituency in the next elections. On the contrary, the prime minister and the opposition leader address his elections meetings. His re-election is assured, which makes him totally independent.
Why should the people be then blamed if they believe more in unbiased judiciary than the speakers, who are dependent upon their political parties for their own political survival ?
I can't say. It depends on how they look at it.
Do you support the suggestion of handing over powers to decide on disqualification to some other authority like the Election Commission or the High Court ?
If you plainly speak about being partial or bias, then every authority is ultimately a human being, having some or other influence on them, in terms of political affiliation or because they are appointed by some or other authority. Even the EC is appointed by somebody and judges can have their personal political leaning as the voter. Anybody could be bias in such a case, demanding the system we are living in.
Your judgements were also biased due to such prevailing circumstances ?
Of course not. It depends on how you look at it.
What remedy do you suggest ?
I have no remedy to suggest as far as the system is concerned. Our whole democratic system has collapsed, having no moral values left in politics any more. The whole political system is slowly being taken over by criminals and smugglers. They are the root cause of it.
Regarding the anti-defection act, it is totally defective. It was brought to prevent defections. But what we see is organised group defections. It needs to be scrapped immediately, making a provision of automatic disqualification. If one wants to leave the party, resign and face elections. No need for the speaker, the election commission or the court to interpret it. I will vociferously put forward this viewpoint, when I participate in the presiding officers' meet in Delhi on 22 September.
The opposition in Goa feels you are the worst speaker Goa had ever seen. Do you think you are the best among all ?
I don't say I am the best, but I am definitely not the worst. I don't agree at all with their allegations that I have lowered dignity of the speaker's post in the country. I am also not prepared to step down due to the court observations, just because they are demanding it. If they feel that I am a misfit, let them remove me. I am prepared for it.
Your Comments Please
