Kataka: In a tactical pivot, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has chosen to reset its legal strategy rather than force a high-stakes constitutional showdown in the courts. Facing procedural roadblocks in its attempt to disqualify eight rebel lawmakers accused of defying party lines during March 16 Rajya Sabha elections, the opposition party is stepping back from pressing its original writ petitions in the Orissa High Court.
Instead, it will file freshly formatted complaints directly with Speaker Surama Padhy, seeking a clean procedural slate to pursue defection charges under the Tenth Schedule.
The legal manoeuvre came to light when senior advocate Milan Kanungo, representing BJD whip Pramila Mallik, informed the court that his client intended to cure technical defects rather than litigate over maintaining the existing petitions.
A controversy that erupted after BJP-backed candidate Dilip Ray defeated Independent urologist Dr Datteswar Hota in the March 16 Rajya Sabha poll, despite Hota enjoying the numerical support of the BJD and Congress. The BJD alleged that eight of its legislators—Arvind Mohapatra, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar, Devi Ranjan Tripathy, Naba Kishore Mallick, Souvic Biswal, Subasini Jena and Ramakanta Bhoi—had defied the party’s collective decision and effectively voted against its preferred candidate, amounting to anti-party activity under the Tenth Schedule. The party later suspended the MLAs and approached Speaker Surama Padhy with disqualification petitions.
On June 19, the Assembly Secretariat rejected those petitions under Rule 7(2), describing them as cryptic, vague and unsubstantiated. The Speaker emphasised that disqualification proceedings are quasi-judicial in character and carry serious consequences for an elected member’s right to complete a full term as well as for the electorate’s mandate. Strict adherence to procedural requirements was essential, the notification stated, and defects in verification, affidavits and supporting material could not be overlooked. Mallik and other BJD leaders later criticised the decision as unilateral and argued that any procedural shortcomings were curable; they maintained the Speaker should have allowed rectification instead of outright dismissal.
Taking note of the BJD’s willingness to fix these technical lapses, Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed that if the petitioner intends to approach the Assembly authority afresh, the High Court need not examine the merits or maintainability of the pending writ petitions at this stage. The bench, which took up five of the eight petitions, including those involving suspended MLAs Arvind Mohapatra, Souvic Biswal, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar, and Subasini Jena, subsequently scheduled the matter for fresh admission on October 29 to record the state counsel’s submissions.
The reassignment to Justice Sahoo followed an administrative order by the Chief Justice after Justice R K Pattanaik recused himself without assigning reasons.
