Stay on floor test extended

Justice K Ravichandrabaabu before whom arguments prevailed initially revolved around as to which petition among the three before the court ought to be taken first. While one pertained to the floor test in the assembly, the other one is about a plea on the inaction on deputy Chief Minister OPS and 11 MLAs who had defied the AIADMK party whip and the third one is about the disqualification of the 18 AIADMK MLAs.

After a bout of arguments over the issue, the advocates finally settled as opined by the Judge on hearing the disqualification of the 18 MLAs first as that along with the one pertaining to OPS would have a bearing on the floor test either ways and hence it would be pointless to hear the floor test first. 

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Abishek Manu Singhvi, who commenced arguments on behalf of one of the disqualified MLAs, built his case on the aspect that the Speaker’s action was against natural justice, biased, premeditated and unconstitutional.

He said the MLAs were disqualified on an “unnamed, unsigned and unverified” complaint given by the government Whip against the MLAs, in contravention of legal principles and fairness. 

Stressing that the MLAs had not gone against their party and had only petitioned the Governor for the removal of the Chief Minister and hence cannot be disqualified under the provisions of anti-defection law, Singhvi submitted that when there was no action against the 11 MLAs led by OPS who had defied the Chief Whip six months ago, it was surprising that action against the 18 MLAs was taken on the same day of complaint and the disqualification was done within 21 days.

Elaborating on how the whole disqualification process smacked of malafide both factually and legally, Singhvi said even the MLAs’ disqualification was not conveyed while it was revealed to the press and published in the official gazette. But the MLAs were intimated by post only after two days.