18 MLAs disqualification case: Third judge commences hearing

Senior Counsel P S Raman appearing for the disqualified MLAs submitted his arguments both in the morning and afternoon sessions touching on the aspect of natural justice and the impending mala fide in law and perversity that followed in the speaker’s decision by relying on aspects that were not on record.

Pointing out that the speaker had acted merely on an unsigned plea without allowing cross examination of the Chief Minister or the whip on whose behest the suspension had come forth, said the entire disqualification proceeding which commenced on August 24 and concluded on September 18, 2017, had transpired in great haste in fear of a floor test and on the assumption that the said legislators were bound to vote against them.

Citing the incident wherein the speaker had failed to initiate action against O Paneerselvam and his supporters for defying party whip and voting against the February floor test moved by the Chief Minister, Raman contended that the 18 AIADMK MLAs would not have met the Governor if the speaker had initiated action against them.

He further submitted that since the speaker was playing politics, the members had no choice but to meet the Governor to submit a memorandum seeking to change the Chief Minister. He argued that the opposition, which usually prefer to fish in troubled waters, had naturally approached the Governor seeking for a floor test. But that cannot be assumed as a case of the MLAs acting along with the opposition.

Raman also noted that the whip’s complaint was primarily based on unsubstantiated media reports and extracts of electronic media without following the rules of the evidence while the same report said that the MLAs had not intention to go against the party or the Government and to voluntarily give up their membership.

It may be noted that while Chief Justice Indira Banerjee had on 14 June upheld Speaker P Dhanapal's decision to disqualify the dissident MLAs, Justice M Sundar disagreed.