MLAs disqualification case: Party in hibernation, argues counsel

Appearing for the disqualified MLAs, senior counsel Mohan Parasaran contended that the disqualification was carried out by the Speaker when the Election Commission of India (ECI), in an interim order, had frozen the party symbol, which meant that the party was in hibernation. He submitted that when it was settled in law that the ECI was the only authority to adjudicate affairs of a recognised political party under the Representation of People Act, the Speaker decided on the disqualification even when the issue regarding the party was subjudice before the commission. 

In the case of OPS and his supporters, the Speaker relied on the ECI’s interim order, while in the case of the 18 MLAs, he held a contrary view that the proceedings before the ECI or the interim order would not restrain him from deciding the disqualification. Further, arguments prevailed over the complaint filed by the whip in his capacity as chief whip, stating that it was illegal as the party was divided then and that Chief Minister Edapadi K Palaniswamy in his reply to the Speaker claimed to be the representative of the AIADMK (Puratchi Thalavi Amma) faction. 

Raising objections to this, senior counsel Aryama Sundaram appearing for the Speaker said, “Even the 18 MLAs in their representation to the Governor claimed to be the legislators of AIADMK.” To this, senior counsel PS Raman retorted that they were in fact elected on behalf of the AIADMK. Then, Justice Sathyanarayanan asked whether the petitioners had raised such objections before the Speaker. But Sundaram contended that these were never part of the pleadings either before the Speaker or the division bench. However, Parasaran held that if such actions were allowed, it would become a precedent for Speaker belonging to a faction of a party to disqualify members of the other faction. Sundaram is scheduled to commence his arguments on behalf of the Speaker on Wednesday.