CHENNAI: The ruling TVK and Opposition DMK locked horns in the Assembly on Monday over allegations of customers being charged an additional Rs 10 for liquor bottles at Tasmac outlets, with the government claiming the practice had continued from the previous regime and the DMK challenging it to establish the allegations through the legal process.
The issue took a controversial turn due to the allegations, as the opposition raised the related court case and called certain remarks sub judice. The opposition DMK walked out at a stage of the discussion objecting to the Speaker not permitting them to respond to the allegations made by the ministers.
PWD and Highways Minister Aadhav Arjuna alleged that corruption was particularly prevalent in the mining and liquor sectors in Tamil Nadu and questioned the transparency of licences issued to liquor manufacturing units. He claimed that 11 distilleries had been granted licences under successive governments and alleged that people associated with the DMK, including a party treasurer and a parliamentarian, had benefited from such licences.
Former Minister EV Velu rejected the allegation, saying licences were issued only to eligible applicants in accordance with prescribed rules. "Granting a licence cannot by itself be called corruption. If there is evidence, take action," he said.
Former Minister V Senthilbalaji accused the government of creating the impression that wrongdoing had occurred during the DMK regime. He said the DMK's policy remained total prohibition and pointed out that 603 Tasmac outlets had been closed during its tenure.
"You can investigate and present your evidence before the court. The court will take the final decision," he said.
Former minister and DMK Deputy Leader of Opposition KN Nehru questioned the ruling side over the alleged Rs 10 collection and asked whether the practice had stopped after the TVK government assumed office. "If the workers overcharged, it is corruption in the DMK government, while you are now giving justification for it under your regime," he said.
Prohibition and Excise Minister K Vignesh said overcharging customers had been entrenched in Tasmac for years and alleged that employees were being made to collect the additional amount. He said the department required comprehensive restructuring and claimed to have evidence of the practice.
Law Minister R Nirmalkumar said that if Rs 10 were collected on annual TASMAC sales of around Rs 50,000 crore, the amount would amount to Rs 5,000 crore. He said steps were being taken to stop such collections.
Intervening in the debate, Speaker JCD Prabhakar cautioned members against discussing in detail matters pending before courts, saying they could refer to a case being pending but should not make allegations against individuals or comment on the merits of the proceedings.
The ruling came when Law Minister R Nirmalkumar cited a court order while responding to allegations of a Tasmac sales scam. Nirmalkumar read out the public prosecutor's contentions recorded in the order. Prabhakar said the Minister had only quoted the prosecutor's submissions and had not read anything beyond what was recorded in the order.
The Speaker said he had examined the hard copy of the order submitted by the minister and pointed out that the passages cited were arguments made before the court, not its verdict. Since the order was in the public domain, he said, the remarks could not be expunged from the Assembly records. "Generally, the members of the House should not go into the details of matters before the court and pending in the court. This is the House's rule," Prabhakar said.
"This case or this matter is pending in the court — we can say. We shouldn't go into detail," he added.
He said members could quote the contents of a court order, particularly the public prosecutor's submissions, but cautioned them against criticising a judge's judgment.
"We cannot and shouldn't criticise the judgment of the judge. But we can quote what the order says, especially when it comes to the public prosecutor," he said.
Prabhakar also urged members to exercise restraint in sensitive cases and refrain from describing anyone as convicted while proceedings were pending.
"The court will deliver the verdict. We cannot pinpoint any member as convicted," he said, asking members not to force him to repeatedly review debates for compliance with law and House rules.