Stalin set to get copy of trust vote commotion video

Tamil Nadu Assembly Secretary has agreed to furnish a copy of the video recording of the sequence of events after Madras High Court on Friday intervened when a PIL from Stalin came up for further hearing. 

The Edappadi K Palanisamy government won the vote of confidence on February 18, amidst ruckus created by DMK MLAs and the Speaker’s refusal to heed to the combined opposition’s demand for secret ballot. Challenging legality of the motion, Stalin has filed the present PIL to declare it as illegal, null and void. 

Two weeks ago, the first bench had directed the Assembly authorities to submit the assembly video recording in court. On Friday, Stalin’s senior counsel R Shanmugasundaram complained to the bench of Acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice M Sundar, that despite a specific direction from the HC, the Assembly Secretary had not furnished a copy of the video recording. 

Noting that the official was on extension and was loyal to the ruling party, the senior counsel said he would go to any extent to defend the ruling party. Instead of furnishing the video of the events, he had filed a lengthy counter-afidavit which was full of lies, Shanmugasundaram said. He also alleged that there was a possibility of the clippings being tampered with by the Assembly authorities. 

Denying the charges, Rakesh Trivedi, senior counsel for the Assembly Secretary, said there were at least 67 representatives of media organizations and there was no possibility or intention to tamper with video clippings. 

The bench then directed the secretary to furnish a copy of the clippings to Stalin as well, and asked the latter to submit his response and rejoinder, if any, in court so that the case could be taken up for further hearing on March 21. 

Another PIL-petitioner K Ravi, who too has sought declaration of the resolution as null and void, albeit on different grounds, pointed out that his PIL was not related to events that occurred on the floor of the House. 

It was about the manner the MLAs reached the Assembly. In this regard, Ravi said firstly, the speaker had refused to accept the court notice. Secondly, the Assembly Secretary’s detailed counter had nothing to do with the PIL since it was not about the events unfolded inside the Assembly. 

Thirdly, the Chief Minister had not  chosen to file his counter-affidavit though he had been cited as third respondent in the PIL. To this, R Krishnamoorthy, senior counsel for Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisamy, said he would peruse the affidavit and would decide on whether or not to file a counter-affidavit or to argue the case. 

Concurring with him, the bench said the PIL-petitioner could not compel the Chief Minister to file a counter or not.