Justice M Duraiswamy of the Madras High Court today ordered that no floor test will be conducted in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly until September 20..The order followed arguments heard today on yet another petition – preferred by the TTV Dinakaran faction of the AIADMK – calling for the ruling AIADMK government to prove majority support through a floor test. Senior Advocates Kapil Sabil and Amarendra Sharan appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Advocate General Vijay Narayan and Senior Advocate AL Somayaji made arguments on behalf of the state..Sibal argued that given the facts, the law, and precedents, a floor test, being the only open and constitutional manner of determining majority, was essential. It was emphasised that following SR Bommai’s case, it is not up to the Governor to decide who holds majority support, but rather this can only be done through a floor test..In this context, he also referred to the recent notice issued on September 6 to 19 AIADMK MLAs by the Speaker of the House under Anti-Defection laws, after they withdrew their support for Chief Minister E Palanaswami. This, along with the recent privilege notice issued to 22 MLAs of the opposition for bringing Gutka packets to the assembly floor, shows malafides on the part of the state, he argued..Senior Advocate PS Raman appeared to argue on behalf of one of the 19 AIADMK MLAs who had been issued notice. Seeking to be impleaded as a necessary party to the case, Raman submitted that the court should ensure that sufficient time is given to the MLAs in the event of their disqualification, to approach for remedy..The Advocate General submitted at the outset that an identical matter is pending before Chief Justice Indira Banerjee, due to be heard in October. The petitioners, however, countered that the instant case had been brought to the notice of the Chief Justice and was since posted before the appropriate single judge after it was brought to her attention..As regards the issue concerning the notice to the 19 AIADMK MLAs, the AG contended that it dealt with an independent matter distinct from the main petition calling for a floor test. It was pointed out during the morning hearings that court intervention was unnecessary, particularly given that no representation had been filed in the matter..On instructions by the single judge, an impleadment petition was filed in the matter on the same day. The affidavit filed therewith apprehends that in view of the main petition, disqualification may be ordered so that the MLAs are not allowed to participate in a floor test that could be scheduled after, and with no time for judicial recourse..Raman argued that while the petition does not support or object to the conduct of a floor test, such disqualification should not be allowed to make a mockery of Schedule 10 of the Constitution and the floor test..The AG made arguments emphasising that the Governor’s role did not extend to interfering in political matters. He questioned whether there was enough material on record for the Governor to discern that the government had lost confidence..In this context, he had referred to the case of Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly to emphasise,.“The Governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties… .…Who should or should not be a leader of a political party, is a political question, to be dealt with and resolved privately by the political party itself. The Governor cannot, make such issues, a matter of his concern.”.He also argued that the 19 MLAs had only questioned the authority of the CM and not of the government itself. The Governor is entitled to form an opinion as to whether intervention is called for at this stage. Time was sought for the AG to receive instructions in this regard..As regards the disqualification notice, the AG informed the court that the speaker has only commenced proceedings against the 19 MLAs. The process was initiated by the Speaker as part of his constitutional duties and opportunity was being given to the MLAs to submit explanation. The entire case of the petitioners, it was contended, was based on unfounded presumptions..AL Somayaji was also present to interject that a court does not ordinarily call upon the Speaker to disclose as to what decisions he will make and when he will make them..Taking into consideration rival contentions, Justice Duraiswamy has ordered that no floor test be conducted until further orders are passed at the next hearing on Wednesday, September 20..Read copy of impleadment petition filed on behalf of MLA, P Vetrivel below.
Justice M Duraiswamy of the Madras High Court today ordered that no floor test will be conducted in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly until September 20..The order followed arguments heard today on yet another petition – preferred by the TTV Dinakaran faction of the AIADMK – calling for the ruling AIADMK government to prove majority support through a floor test. Senior Advocates Kapil Sabil and Amarendra Sharan appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Advocate General Vijay Narayan and Senior Advocate AL Somayaji made arguments on behalf of the state..Sibal argued that given the facts, the law, and precedents, a floor test, being the only open and constitutional manner of determining majority, was essential. It was emphasised that following SR Bommai’s case, it is not up to the Governor to decide who holds majority support, but rather this can only be done through a floor test..In this context, he also referred to the recent notice issued on September 6 to 19 AIADMK MLAs by the Speaker of the House under Anti-Defection laws, after they withdrew their support for Chief Minister E Palanaswami. This, along with the recent privilege notice issued to 22 MLAs of the opposition for bringing Gutka packets to the assembly floor, shows malafides on the part of the state, he argued..Senior Advocate PS Raman appeared to argue on behalf of one of the 19 AIADMK MLAs who had been issued notice. Seeking to be impleaded as a necessary party to the case, Raman submitted that the court should ensure that sufficient time is given to the MLAs in the event of their disqualification, to approach for remedy..The Advocate General submitted at the outset that an identical matter is pending before Chief Justice Indira Banerjee, due to be heard in October. The petitioners, however, countered that the instant case had been brought to the notice of the Chief Justice and was since posted before the appropriate single judge after it was brought to her attention..As regards the issue concerning the notice to the 19 AIADMK MLAs, the AG contended that it dealt with an independent matter distinct from the main petition calling for a floor test. It was pointed out during the morning hearings that court intervention was unnecessary, particularly given that no representation had been filed in the matter..On instructions by the single judge, an impleadment petition was filed in the matter on the same day. The affidavit filed therewith apprehends that in view of the main petition, disqualification may be ordered so that the MLAs are not allowed to participate in a floor test that could be scheduled after, and with no time for judicial recourse..Raman argued that while the petition does not support or object to the conduct of a floor test, such disqualification should not be allowed to make a mockery of Schedule 10 of the Constitution and the floor test..The AG made arguments emphasising that the Governor’s role did not extend to interfering in political matters. He questioned whether there was enough material on record for the Governor to discern that the government had lost confidence..In this context, he had referred to the case of Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly to emphasise,.“The Governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties… .…Who should or should not be a leader of a political party, is a political question, to be dealt with and resolved privately by the political party itself. The Governor cannot, make such issues, a matter of his concern.”.He also argued that the 19 MLAs had only questioned the authority of the CM and not of the government itself. The Governor is entitled to form an opinion as to whether intervention is called for at this stage. Time was sought for the AG to receive instructions in this regard..As regards the disqualification notice, the AG informed the court that the speaker has only commenced proceedings against the 19 MLAs. The process was initiated by the Speaker as part of his constitutional duties and opportunity was being given to the MLAs to submit explanation. The entire case of the petitioners, it was contended, was based on unfounded presumptions..AL Somayaji was also present to interject that a court does not ordinarily call upon the Speaker to disclose as to what decisions he will make and when he will make them..Taking into consideration rival contentions, Justice Duraiswamy has ordered that no floor test be conducted until further orders are passed at the next hearing on Wednesday, September 20..Read copy of impleadment petition filed on behalf of MLA, P Vetrivel below.
