Breaking: M Sathyanarayanan J upholds Speaker’s decision to disqualify 18 MLAs

Justice M Sathyanarayanan of the Madras High Court has finally rendered his verdict in the 18 MLA disqualification case, concluding that there was no error apparent in the decision of the Speaker to disqualify the MLAs on grounds of defection..A Division Bench of then Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar had rendered a split verdict in June this year, eventually leading to Justice Sathyanarayanan’s appointment as the tie-breaker judge..While today’s verdict appears to be in tune with Chief Justice Banerjee’s decision last June, Justice Sathyanarayanan made it clear that he did not go by the view adopted by either judge, but rather came to the conclusion on his own independent reasoning..While reading out operative extracts of his independent judgment this morning, Justice Sathyanarayanan observed that there was no malice or violation of the Constitutional mandate in the impugned disqualification of the 18 MLAs..In his judgment, he ultimately concludes as follows,.“This Court, on an independent application of mind to the materials placed and on careful scrutiny and appreciation of the entire materials placed and after giving thorough consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the reasons assigned by the first respondent/Speaker did not suffer on the grounds of Breach of Constitutional Mandate, Malafides, Non- Compliance of the Rules of Natural Justice and no Perversity is attached to the reasons assigned by the first respondent/Speaker to disqualify the petitioners.“.The decision comes almost two months after Justice Sathyanarayanan reserved orders in the case on August 31..Justice Sathyanarayanan is the fifth judge to whom the case was passed on, although he is only the third to pass judgment..The case itself can be traced to August 2017, when 19 MLAs of the ruling AIADMK faction informed the Governor of Tamil Nadu that they had no confidence in the EPS-lead AIADMK government..Eventually, 18 of the 19 MLAs were disqualified by the Speaker, P Dhanapal on grounds of defection, in September 2017. One MLA was spared after he tendered an apology and withdrew his earlier representation.The 18 however challenged their disqualification in the Madras High Court..In due course, this case was clubbed along with other related petitions and initially posted before Justice M Duraiswamy. After a roster change, these petitions were eventually placed before Justice K Ravichandrabaabu..However, Justice Ravichandrabaabu found it appropriate to refer the cases to a larger bench, given his opinion that there were questions of Constitutional significance to be decided..The third Bench to hear the case, i.e. the Division Bench of Chief Justice Banerjee and Justice Sundar reserved orders in the matter last January, and thereafter found themselves unable to agree on a decision almost five months later..In order to break the tie, Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh was called on to nominate a judge to decide on the points of conflict. However, Justice Ramesh’s nomination of Justice S Vimala as the tie breaker judge was promptly challenged in the Supreme Court, citing and “apprehension of the likelihood of bias.”.Finally, the Apex Court tasked Justice M Sathyanarayanan to put the matter to rest..Various rounds of litigation drew in the services of a number of Senior Counsel. Senior advocates Dushyant Dave, PS Raman, Kapil Sibal, Amarendra Sharan, Salman Khurshid, AM Singhvi and Vikas Singh have made appearances on behalf of the petitioners, who include the disqualified MLAs and the Opposition party, DMK..Senior advocates CS Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, Rakesh Dwiwedi, AL Somayaji and Mukul Rohatgi, as well as AG Vijay Narayan have appeared for the respondents in the various petitions, including members of the ruling AIADMK government and authorities of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly..It may also be noted that the petitions clubbed together were filed around three major events..A privilege committee notice issued in July 2017 to MK Stalin, Leader of the Opposition party, DMK and 20 other DMK MLAs, for having brought Gutka (chewing tobacco) to the Assembly floor..The demonstration, which was aimed to exhibit the easy availability of the banned substance in the state, did not quite have the desired effect, when the Speaker initiated Privilege Committee proceedings against them instead. A challenge made to this notice is still pending judgement..A trust vote held in February 2017, in which incumbent Deputy Chief Minister O Paneerselvam (OPS) and 10 other AIADMK MLAs voted against Chief Minister EPS, contrary to the AIADMK Whip’s directions..As the 18 MLA disqualification case and the Gutka case came up, petitions were filed protesting the Speaker’s apparent reluctance to disqualify OPS and the 10 other MLAs for their February rebellion. This case has been dismissed by a Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose last April. The Bench found that to direct the Speaker to act against the 11 MLAs would amount to judicial overreach..The case against the disqualification of the 18 AIADMK MLAs for withdrawing support for the EPS-lead Government, which has now been decided..In the background are demands for a Floor Test, which had been stayed pending a decision in these cases. Demands for a Floor Test had gained momentum as various players argued that the withdrawal of support by the 18 MLAs meant that the ruling Government was reduced to a minority..Read the Judgment: