Kaul refers to Article 179 which deals with removal of Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
"We hereby hold, that it would be constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the office of Speaker, is pending" - Kaul reads from Nabam Rebia.
"We are of the view, that constitutional purpose would be maintained & preserved, if a Speaker refrains from adjudication of a petition for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, whilst his own position, as Speaker, is under challenge" -Kaul reads decision
"Any change in the strength and composition of the Assembly, by disqualifying sitting MLAs, for the period during which the notice of resolution for the removal of the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker) is pending, would conflict with the express mandate of Article 179(c)" - Kaul reads.
"The office of Speaker, with which the Constitution vests the authority to deal with disqualification petitions against MLAs, must surely be a Speaker who enjoys confidence of the Assembly" - Kaul quotes from Nabam Rebia.
Judges discussing amongst themselves.
"Why would a Speaker who is confident of his majority, fear a floor test?" - Kaul reads from Nabam Rebia decision.
"When the position of a Speaker is under challenge, through a notice of resolution for his removal, it would “seem” just & appropriate, that the Speaker first demonstrates his right to continue as such, by winning support of the majority in the State Legislature" - Kaul reads
Judges return.
Hearing resumes.
Kaul reads out the para from "Nabam Rebia" decision.
The bench takes a break.
Justice Surya Kant : Just two minutes break.
Judges rise.