No malafide intent in disqualification of MLAs

Arguing before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, the Supreme Court lawyer contended that the 18 MLAs approaching the Governor seeking to seeking to establish the constitutional process was nothing but seeking for a floor test.

This, he said was nothing but a move to topple the government resulting in the 10th schedule coming into play.

Seeking to argue against malafide bestowed on the Speaker’s action by acting in haste on the 18 MLAs while failing to act against the 11 MLAs who had voted against the AIADMK government, Aryama Sundaram contended that the interim order of the ECI passed in March prevented the Speaker from acting on the complaint against OPS group since they were recognised a separate group. Hence, there was no bias, malafide or perversity of the speaker in waiting to act before the ECI concluded as to which group is the real AIADMK.

Countering arguments that the speaker acted in haste throwing natural justice to the wind, his counsel submitted that while the rules paved way for just a week’s time and comparing it with the Yedyurappa case, wherein a decision was made within three days, the MLAs were offered six weeks to explain their position.

But they continued to return seeking more adjournments while in the meanwhile no material was provided. This clearly established that the Speaker had not acted in haste, Aryama Sundaram argued.

He also noted that the disqualified MLAs claim that no opportunity was given to cross examine the Chief Minister to establish that they had met him to highlight their differences.

But it was for the petitioners to prove their claims and not vice versa and that the Speaker cannot be called to prove a negative.