Sept. 11: The Supreme Court today allowed the Jharkhand Speaker a free hand in deciding whether to disqualify three MLAs, all of whom are expected to vote against the embattled BJP-led government in this week’s floor test.

The court didn’t pass any order on petitions by Anosh Ekka, Stephen Marandi and Kamlesh Singh, who had asked that Speaker Inder Singh Namdhari be restrained from deciding their fate before the trust vote, due by Friday.

However, the court, which thought it improper to step in before the Speaker had decided, kept the matter alive. It adjourned hearing till Thursday, a day before the deadline expires for chief minister Arjun Munda to prove his majority.

So, if the MLAs are disqualified before the floor test, they can approach the court for a stay on the Speaker’s order. They can even seek a hearing earlier than Thursday.

Namdhari, who has served disqualification notices on the trio, acted swiftly and said he would hear the cases on Wednesday. Ekka (Jharkhand Party), Marandi (Independent) and Singh (Nationalist Congress Party) would each get two hours to argue his case.

The Speaker, who has in the past lambasted the judiciary for “interfering” in legislative matters, hailed the apex court for “upholding the dignity and autonomy of the legislature”.

Ekka and Singh are among the four rebels who have pulled the plug on Munda’s National Democratic Alliance government, the other two being Harinarayan Rai and Madhu Koda.

In the court, Marandi’s counsel K.K. Venugopal argued that the Speaker’s decision to issue the disqualification notices only after the governor had ordered a floor test smacked of mala-fide intention.

He said the charge against Marandi was that he had joined the Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Democratic) after being elected as an Independent. Yet, the Morcha was not a political party under the Representation of People’s Act but a social organisation. And even if it were, his client had not joined it — he had founded it.

Venugopal mentioned that the Morcha was formed in November 2005 to fight corruption — 10 months before the notice was issued.

Counsel Fali S. Nariman opposed the petitions, saying the three MLAs should file a response to the notice instead of asking the Supreme Court to act as a tribunal and judge the Speaker’s decision. Counsel Mukul Rohatgi joined him, saying the court cannot supervise the Speaker’s action.