Cuttack: Orissa high court on Thursday issued notice to the assembly speaker on the petition of BJD chief whip Pramila Mallik challenging rejection of her petitions seeking disqualification of eight party MLAs over alleged cross-voting in the March Rajya Sabha elections.Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo also issued notices to the assembly secretary in five of the eight petitions, concerning suspended BJD MLAs Arvind Mohapatra, Souvic Biswal, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar and Subasini Jena, taken up till date.The respondents have been asked to file their replies by Dec 4 and Jan 11, 2027, has been fixed for considering maintainability of the petitions.Reacting to the development, Mallik expressed her gratitude to the high court. Mallik said the party has faith in the judicial process. She expressed hope that the case would be concluded within a specified time-frame. Constitutional and legal issues would be presented with due respect for dignity of the judicial process and in accordance with established legal principles.The petitions have challenged the Speaker’s decision to reject complaints against the eight legislators over alleged cross-voting in Rajya Sabha polls held in March. Although the petitions were filed over a month ago, the court has not examined merits of the disqualification allegations in the proceedings so far.Earlier on Sept 30, Justice R K Pattanaik had recused himself from hearing the petitions. Consequently, the chief justice assigned the matter to Justice Sahoo through an administrative order.The speaker, while rejecting Mallik’s petitions, had stressed importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure for disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The June 19 notification described the speaker’s role in such matters as quasi-judicial and highlighted the serious consequences disqualification could have for an elected legislator and the electorate’s mandate.According to the petitions, the speaker ought to have allowed the petitioners an opportunity to rectify procedural defects instead of rejecting the disqualification pleas outright. Rejection of the petitions on technical grounds without examining the allegations would defeat the objective of the anti-defection law, the petitions contend.