The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly to decide on the resignations of the 15 rebel Congress and JD(S) MLAs within an appropriate time frame.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi refrained from laying down any particular time frame and also ordered that the 15 MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the House tomorrow during the No-confidence motion.

The bench, also comprising justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, said that they would not fetter Speaker and said that once he takes the decision, the same be placed before the court.

The bench, while pronouncing the order, said it was necessary to maintain the constitutional balance in the matter.

The court said other issues raised in the matter would be decided at a later stage.

Welcoming the verdict, Kumar said he would conduct himself responsibly in accordance with the principles of the Constitution.

"With utmost humility, I welcome and respect the Supreme Court decision," Kumar said soon after the apex court pronounced its order on the issue of resignations of the lawmakers that has pushed the state into political turmoil.

"The SC has put an extra burden on me, I will conduct myself responsibly in accordance with constitutional principle," he told reporters in Kolar, his home town.

On July 10, ten rebel MLAs of the Congress and the JD(S) in Karnataka approached the Supreme Court challenging the delay by the Speaker of State Assembly in accepting their resignations. Later on five more MLAs had approached the court seeking the same relief.

The day-long hearing on Tuesday before the apex bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi concluded after high-voltage arguments by the lawyers for rebel MLAs, the Speaker and CM HD Kumaraswamy.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the MLAs, asked the bench to continue with its interim order directing the Speaker to maintain status quo on the issue of resignations and disqualification of the MLAs.

“It is my right to do what I want to do. The Speaker is infringing on that right,” he said.

Citing the case of Umesh Jadhav, Rohtagi said, “He resigned as MLA on March 20 when his disqualification was pending. The Speaker accepted his resignation on April 1, so it isn’t as if the Speaker has always considered that disqualification needs to be decided first.”

The counsel asked the bench to exempt the 15 rebel MLAs from appearing in the Assembly on the basis of the whip issued by the coalition which, he said, has been reduced to a minority.

“If I don’t want to be an MLA, you cannot force me to be one. Moreover, acceptance of resignation is based on one criterion alone — whether it is voluntary or genuine,” Rohtagi said.

“This is a government which has lost majority and the Speaker only wants to prop up a government which is in minority,” he added.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Speaker, questioned the jurisdiction of the court saying, “The Speaker can’t be asked to decide on resignations in a time bound-manner like this.”

To this, the CJI remarked, “Where were the questions of jurisdiction of this court when it appointed even a pro-tem Speaker? You didn’t say anything then because it suited you?” The bench was referring to the 2018 midnight hearing when the court had ordered BJP’s BS Yeddyurappa to take the floor test.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Karnataka Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy, told the court that it had no jurisdiction to pass the two interim orders asking the Speaker to decide and, later, to maintain status quo on the resignations and disqualification of the rebel MLAs. He argued that the Speaker cannot be compelled to decide on this issue in a time-bound manner.

He also told the Supreme Court that the rebel MLAs were “hunting in a pack” to destabilise the government and that the court should not have entertained their petitions.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Speaker, argued that the Speaker will decide on both disqualifications and resignations of the MLAs by Wednesday, but that the court should modify its earlier order asking him to maintain status quo.

He also said that a valid resignation should be submitted to the Speaker personally and the MLAs appeared before him only on July 11.

However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the MLAs, countered and said, “There is nothing to show the rebel MLAs conspired with BJP and the disqualification proceeding was nothing but an effort to scuttle the resignation of MLAs.”

This led the bench to intervene. “You both (Speaker and MLAs) have weighty points to consider and we will do the balancing.”