The Madras High Court today passed an order extending the interim stay passed last week on the conduct of a Floor Test in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly..It also directed that elections to fill seats belonging to recently disqualified AIADMK MLAs not be held until further orders are passed. The order was passed by Justice M Duraiswamy based on the consent of all parties concerned..Senior advocates Dushyant Dave, PS Raman, Kapil Sibal, Amarendra Sharan and Salman Khurshid appeared on behalf of the petitioners, who include the disqualified MLAs and the Opposition party, DMK. Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, Rakesh Dwiwedi and AL Somayaji appeared on behalf of the respondents..Arguing on behalf of the disqualified MLAs, Dave asserted that their disqualification order suffers from malice. The letter on the basis of which they were purportedly disqualified does not indicate any intention of their abandonment of the party or a withdrawal from the party ethos. Rather, it reflects their stance as concerned and conscientious representatives of the people..In this regard, he referred to Yeddyurappa’s case, the facts of which were argued to be identical to present scenario. It was argued that the speaker was not entitled to invoke defection laws in respect of the MLAs, given that none of them had voluntarily withdrawn from the party. Expressing lack of confidence in the Chief Minister does not amount to defection..It was also averred that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules were not adhered to in passing the disqualification order. It was contended that the Speaker was not above the law and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Yeddyurappa case..In stressing the significant role played by regional political parties in the progress of Tamil Nadu, Dave also suggested that it is apparent that people in Delhi are controlling the affairs in the state..This remark was met with immediate objection from the lawyers arguing for the state. Vaidyanathan argued that considering the seriousness of the allegations, time has to be permitted so that a reply may be filed. Whereas Dave had asked that the case be heard and disposed of at the earliest, Vaidyanathan countered that the same could not be done unless a reply on this aspect was allowed to be made. Reacting to the objection, Dave remarked,.“Are you representing a political party? I only spoke of regional autonomy!”.As the respondent-counsel sought for time to make replies, the petitioners agreed for the same, provided that the 18 disqualified MLAs do not stand to lose by reason of the extension. For this reason, the petitioners held that the matter may be adjourned subject to the condition that either no floor test be conducted, or if the floor test is conducted, that the 18 MLAs be allowed to participate..They also sought for suspension of the operative part of the disqualification order, lest the constitutional consequence of elections being held to fill the vacant seats follow. Sundaram, however, countered that orders cannot be suspended. Further, the domain of holding fresh elections to fill up vacant seats would fall upon the Election Commission, which is not party to this case..Sibal requested that the Court pass orders that no action will be taken pending the disposal of the case..Reacting to this submission, Sundaram wondered aloud,.“Who is Mr Sibal appearing for? I was under the impression that it was for the DMK, not the MLAs. Why is he speaking for them?”.Dave was quick to respond, remarking that the open collusion in court was between the Chief Minister and the Speaker. Sibal countered that he had mentioned at the last hearing that such disqualification would happen, and now it has..PS Raman pointed out that there would be no reprieve if the Election Commission notifies a date for elections while the matter is adjourned..In this context, it was suggested by respondent counsel that the Court order the seats of the disqualified MLAs be kept vacant until the next hearing. Such an order would not amount directly to an order to the Election Commission, but at the same time would address the concerns of the petitioners..Appreciating the suggestion, Dave remarked,.“Mr Sundaram is very fair.”.“This is the one sentence of Mr. Dave, since this morning, that I agree with”, responded Vaidyanathan..As negotiations for a mutually acceptable interim order were coming to a close, party-in-person G Devarajan interjected that he too be impleaded as a party and further that he be furnished with copies of the other parties’ submissions. He argued that his interim application should be allowed given that, being a voter, he is being affected by the case at hand. He also went on to question the role of the other counsel in a matter concerning Tamil Nadu..Justice Duraiswamy took note of these submissions before passing the order to adjourn the proceedings till after the upcoming court vacation. He has also clubbed the matter regarding the recent Privilege Committee notice, holding that both matters will be disposed off with a common judgement..The matter has been posted to be heard next on October 4..Read the order:.Read copy of petition filed on behalf of the 18 disqualified MLAs:.Image courtesy:.Salman Khurshid.Amarendra Sharan.AL Somayaji.CS Vaidyanathan.Kapil Sibal
The Madras High Court today passed an order extending the interim stay passed last week on the conduct of a Floor Test in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly..It also directed that elections to fill seats belonging to recently disqualified AIADMK MLAs not be held until further orders are passed. The order was passed by Justice M Duraiswamy based on the consent of all parties concerned..Senior advocates Dushyant Dave, PS Raman, Kapil Sibal, Amarendra Sharan and Salman Khurshid appeared on behalf of the petitioners, who include the disqualified MLAs and the Opposition party, DMK. Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, Rakesh Dwiwedi and AL Somayaji appeared on behalf of the respondents..Arguing on behalf of the disqualified MLAs, Dave asserted that their disqualification order suffers from malice. The letter on the basis of which they were purportedly disqualified does not indicate any intention of their abandonment of the party or a withdrawal from the party ethos. Rather, it reflects their stance as concerned and conscientious representatives of the people..In this regard, he referred to Yeddyurappa’s case, the facts of which were argued to be identical to present scenario. It was argued that the speaker was not entitled to invoke defection laws in respect of the MLAs, given that none of them had voluntarily withdrawn from the party. Expressing lack of confidence in the Chief Minister does not amount to defection..It was also averred that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules were not adhered to in passing the disqualification order. It was contended that the Speaker was not above the law and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Yeddyurappa case..In stressing the significant role played by regional political parties in the progress of Tamil Nadu, Dave also suggested that it is apparent that people in Delhi are controlling the affairs in the state..This remark was met with immediate objection from the lawyers arguing for the state. Vaidyanathan argued that considering the seriousness of the allegations, time has to be permitted so that a reply may be filed. Whereas Dave had asked that the case be heard and disposed of at the earliest, Vaidyanathan countered that the same could not be done unless a reply on this aspect was allowed to be made. Reacting to the objection, Dave remarked,.“Are you representing a political party? I only spoke of regional autonomy!”.As the respondent-counsel sought for time to make replies, the petitioners agreed for the same, provided that the 18 disqualified MLAs do not stand to lose by reason of the extension. For this reason, the petitioners held that the matter may be adjourned subject to the condition that either no floor test be conducted, or if the floor test is conducted, that the 18 MLAs be allowed to participate..They also sought for suspension of the operative part of the disqualification order, lest the constitutional consequence of elections being held to fill the vacant seats follow. Sundaram, however, countered that orders cannot be suspended. Further, the domain of holding fresh elections to fill up vacant seats would fall upon the Election Commission, which is not party to this case..Sibal requested that the Court pass orders that no action will be taken pending the disposal of the case..Reacting to this submission, Sundaram wondered aloud,.“Who is Mr Sibal appearing for? I was under the impression that it was for the DMK, not the MLAs. Why is he speaking for them?”.Dave was quick to respond, remarking that the open collusion in court was between the Chief Minister and the Speaker. Sibal countered that he had mentioned at the last hearing that such disqualification would happen, and now it has..PS Raman pointed out that there would be no reprieve if the Election Commission notifies a date for elections while the matter is adjourned..In this context, it was suggested by respondent counsel that the Court order the seats of the disqualified MLAs be kept vacant until the next hearing. Such an order would not amount directly to an order to the Election Commission, but at the same time would address the concerns of the petitioners..Appreciating the suggestion, Dave remarked,.“Mr Sundaram is very fair.”.“This is the one sentence of Mr. Dave, since this morning, that I agree with”, responded Vaidyanathan..As negotiations for a mutually acceptable interim order were coming to a close, party-in-person G Devarajan interjected that he too be impleaded as a party and further that he be furnished with copies of the other parties’ submissions. He argued that his interim application should be allowed given that, being a voter, he is being affected by the case at hand. He also went on to question the role of the other counsel in a matter concerning Tamil Nadu..Justice Duraiswamy took note of these submissions before passing the order to adjourn the proceedings till after the upcoming court vacation. He has also clubbed the matter regarding the recent Privilege Committee notice, holding that both matters will be disposed off with a common judgement..The matter has been posted to be heard next on October 4..Read the order:.Read copy of petition filed on behalf of the 18 disqualified MLAs:.Image courtesy:.Salman Khurshid.Amarendra Sharan.AL Somayaji.CS Vaidyanathan.Kapil Sibal
