AIADMK hopeful of favourable judgment in 18 MLAs case too

The Friday’s verdict had raised hopes of the ruling AIADMK, who cite the similarities in the two cases. The High Court had refused to enter the jurisdiction of the Speaker and had cited a petition pending in the Supreme Court if the courts could pass orders to Speaker. Besides the disqualification plea against Panneerselvam, the court had also stated the same principle on the unveiling of portrait of former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, the ruling party leaders pointed out.

Tamil Development Minister ‘Mafoi’ K Pandiarajan said, “In both the cases, the court had held that the Speaker had functioned within his powers. The High Court had confirmed that the Speaker cannot be compelled to take a decision. It is a harbinger to the next judgment on the disqualification of 18 MLAs case. Every judgment sets a precedent and this verdict too will be a precedent for the next.”

However, the Opposition parties and analysts draw a different conclusion based on Friday’s judgment pointing out the striking differences between the two cases. The major contrast is that the Speaker had passed an order disqualifying the 18 MLAs and the court itself could quash the Speaker’s direction without passing an order to the Speaker. 

The question of the court giving orders to the Speaker and entering the latter’s jurisdiction does not arise in the case of 18 legislators. In the case of 11 MLAs, the prayer of the petitioners is to give an order to the Speaker, but in the case of 18 MLAs, the petitioners had asked the court itself to quash the orders, they said.

TNCC president S Thirunavukkarasar, who pointed out this major difference said, “The disqualification of 18 MLAs case may not go in favour of the ruling party, since the Speaker had already taken a decision which can be subjected to legal scrutiny. The court itself can decide if the Speaker’s action is legally right or wrong based on the anti-defection law and pass a judgment.”

Another contrast is that 18 MLAs had been disqualified for presenting a petition to the Governor, an action outside the Assembly. 

The voting of 11 MLAs in the Assembly and unveiling of Jayalalithaa’s portrait are actions within the Assembly and fall within the jurisdiction of the Speaker. 

The major question if a Speaker could take action for the activities of MLAs outside the Assembly also rises in the next case, political watchers pointed out.

After the Madras High Court dismissed the petition on disqualification of 11 MLAs, including Deputy Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, the DMK working president M K Stalin has said that they will go in appeal in the Supreme Court. He said, “The Court has observed that it cannot instruct the Assembly Speaker to take action against 11 MLAs. Moreover, the Court stated that it cannot interfere in unveiling former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s portrait in the Assembly.” However, he raised questions that why the court delayed giving such a verdict.