Madras HC dismisses DMK plea for disqualifying OPS, 10 AIADMK MLAs

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose dismissed the plea after observing that it cannot take over the functions of the speaker to decide on the disqualification. Also, noting that the court cannot interfere in assembly speaker's powers, the bench pointed out that the issue of whether mandamus can be issued to a speaker is pending with the Supreme Court. This, bars the high court from interfering in such actions of the speaker, the bench said.

Citing the aspect of segregation of powers, the bench pointed out that the plea pertained not to the decision of the speaker but on his inaction. Under such circumstances the Court cannot take up the duties of the Speaker. Even if it can, it will end up being a case of judicial overreach.

The much-awaited order of the first bench has come as a big relief to the ruling AIADMK caught up in a turmoil of sorts. Though the verdict is poised for an appeal at the Apex Court, the politically significant case is bound to be a shot in the arm for the AIADMK to cement its position.

The pleas moved by both by DMK and legislators from the TTV Dhinakaran faction, wanted the court to disqualify the 11 MLAs for having defied an AIADMK whip and voted against a trust moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami.

DMK's main contention was that the speaker had failed in his constitutional duties by not initiating disqualification proceedings against Paneerselvam and 10 other MLAs who voted against the motion. Therefore, it is for the court to fulfil its obligation by directing such an action.

Dhinakaran loyalists submitted that when a no-confidence motion was moved against the government, it was the duty of all members of the ruling party to vote in favour of the government.

Also, citing the disqualification of the 18 MLAs for merely petitioning the governor seeking to change the Chief Minister, it was argued that the speaker who acted then had failed to act in the instance of the 11 MLAs whose bounden duty is to vote in favour of the motion. It was also argued that a question of whip does not arise and the voting by the 11 MLAs was in shear defiance of the Government.