MLAs disqualification case: Third judge reserves order

The hearing which commenced on July 23 lasted for 12 days with senior counsels drawn from the High Court as well as the Supreme Court appearing on either side to buttress their case.

The case was referred to a third judge following a split verdict by the then first bench that heard the case. 

While the then Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the order of disqualification passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly speaker P Dhanapal, the second Judge Justice M Sundar set aside the Speaker’s order on grounds of perversity and violation of constitutional mandate.

On Friday, senior counsel Aryama Sundaram appearing for Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker stressed that there was no violation of natural justice and stressed on political impropriety committed by the 18 MLAs by meeting the Governor. 

He said the MLAs meeting the Governor was not about what he can do, but that they wanted him to order for a floor test whereby they can vote against the Government.

However, Senior Counsel P S Raman appearing for a few of the disqualified MLAs argued that dissenting against the Chief Minister who is not the party leader neither amounts to surrendering the party membership nor leads to disqualification. He also submitted that the Speaker had made his decision based on extraneous reports without obtaining any explanation from the said MLAs. He said the speaker had totally relied on S T K Jakkaiyan’s submission who just ahead of the disqualification of the 18 MLAS, switched over to the ruling camp.

He also stressed that in the split verdict both the judges had concurred that 18 MLAs had not joined hands with the opposition.

The disqualification of the 18 AIADMK MLAS owing allegiance to TTV Dinakaran had transpired in September 2017. But as per the number game in vogue at the assembly, indications are clear that reinstatement of the 18 MLAs might spell trouble for the ruling AIADMK.