The Supreme Court can decide on this matter in the matter of political conflicts in Karnataka.
After the hearing from the late night on Thursday till Thursday, the Supreme Court had not put any restriction on taking the oath of BJP leader BS Yeddyurappa, but it was said that this is not his last decision on this matter.
The case will be heard from 10.30 pm on Friday. The court has also asked for the letter given by the BJP to the Governor on May 15 and 16.
Yeddyurappa has taken the oath of office as Chief Minister of Karnataka and if he believes that the governor has given him 15 days to prove his majority. According to experts, there can be a debate on the 15-day period during the Friday hearing. Congress and JDS have already expressed their objection to this.
Even in the case of Goa, the Supreme Court had given 48 hours to prove the majority in the Assembly to stop the purchase of legislators.
The BJP won 104 seats in the 222 seats of Karnataka assembly, Congress won 78 and JDS 37 seats. While others have three seats.
Now the question is, what are the options for the Supreme Court in Karnataka?
The Supreme Court has sought BJP’s letters which he has sent to the governor. Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi is demanding that BJP name the names of those MLAs whose claim of support they are claiming.
As far as names are concerned, it seems difficult to name names in the Supreme Court. The Governor, however, can refuse to give the list by referring to Article 163. And the Supreme Court can not force the governor to give a list on this matter.
The point of view will be that if the list is not submitted to the Supreme Court, then what the court does.
Role of governor
The question of the governor’s decision that many questions are raised on. The governor, who won the maximum number of seats in the Karnataka assembly elections, invited the BJP to form the government, whereas the Congress and JDS had made a claim to form the government together.
The difficulty is that neither the 1994 Bommai case nor the 2014 Supreme Court has decided in the Nagaland case of Arunachal Pradesh, in which a precedent for the governor was made about the government’s appointment.
According to Article 163 and 164, the governor can take a decision with his discretion while appointing the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers.
In his decision in the Arunachal Pradesh case, the Supreme Court had definitely said that the governor should make a fair decision. But no constitutional bench has prepared any framework on this matter regarding the formation of government in states.
The governor has asked Yeddyurappa to prove majority in 15 days. In the case of Goa, the Supreme Court reduced the deadline for proving the majority to 48 hours. It is believed that the Supreme Court can also reduce the time limit in this case.
Accusation of purchase
The big question is that BJP has 104 seats. To prove its majority, eight more legislators need support. Opposition parties are accusing MLAs of buying and selling.
The Attorney General has said in the Supreme Court that only after the swearing-in, anti-party prohibition law applies. By the way, the anti-defection law eliminates the membership of the legislator but does not prevent them from contesting the elections again.
It is now to see that the Supreme Court decides after the political violence in Karnataka.