The Chief Justice of Madras High Court upheld Tamil Nadu Speaker’s order disqualifying 18 AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined leader TTV Dhinakaran. Justice Sundar disagreed. Auto refresh feeds The Madras High Court will most likely deliver its verdict on petitions challenging the disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined party leader TTV Dhinakaran. The verdict may open up a fresh round of political squabbles and legal battles and could have a bearing on the stability of the AIADMK government led by Chief Minister K Palaniswami, who had assumed office in February 2017 with the backing of Dhinakaran but later turned against him. If the court quashes the speaker's order disqualifying the 18 MLAs, it could pose some trouble to the Palaniswami government, though the ruling AIADMK is confident that its government would not face any immediate threat to its survival. The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, which had on 23 January reserved its orders on the petitions by the 18 MLAs challenging their disqualification by the assembly speaker under the anti-defection law, was likely to give the judgement in the afternoon, court sources said. Should the Madras High Court uphold the disqualification of the 18 MLAs from TTV Dhinakaran camp, he won't move the Supreme Court, Thanga Tamilselvan, a key legislator supporting Sasikala's nephew TTV Dhinakaran told The Economic Times . He said it was his individual decision to not litigate further in this case. The Tamil Nadu Assembly has taken a 10-day break and will reconvene on 25 June. If at all the case is quashed by the Madras High Court, the state government will have to prove its majority. Hence, experts think this could be a tactic to ensure they get more time to get ready for the floor test. According to CNN-News18, Chief Minister E Palaniswami had a meeting with advocate general and the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu. The Chief Justice of Madras High Court upheld Tamil Nadu Speaker’s 18 September 2017 order disqualifying 18 AIADMK MLAs, owing allegiance to sidelined leader TTV Dhinakaran, on the ground of defection. Justice Sundar disagrees. Since the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee and Justice Sundar gave a split verdict, the case may be referred to a third judge. Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh will nominate the third judge for the matter. No floor test or fresh polls will be held till this the final verdict is given. "Actually the verdict gives some more life to the existing anti people's government," TTV Dhinakaran said speaking to reporters after the Madras High Court gave a split verdict. He said that the loyal MLAs were chosen by "Amma" Jayalalithaa and her people. "They have undergone severe trauma over the last few months," he said. Judges split over disqualification; Dhinakaran says verdict will only give 'some more life' to Palaniswamy govt Speaking to reporters, TTV Dhinakaran called it a fight for ideology. He said, "In Thursday's verdict, one judge has said the Speaker's decision was wrong. The chief justice (Indira Banerjee) who has upheld the Speaker's order had struck down Puducherry Speaker's decision. How can the law be different for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry?" There is a question mark on judiciary after this decision, says Dhinakaran According to India Today, there are four rebel AIADMK MLAs apart from the 18 legislators facing disqualification who are TTV Dhinakaran supporters. These numbers could pose threat to Palaniswami. The DMK has 89 MLAs, allies Congress have 8 and the IUML has one in the 234 member strong House. The Chief Justice of Madras High Court upheld Tamil Nadu Speaker’s 18 September 2017 order disqualifying 18 AIADMK MLAs, owing allegiance to sidelined leader TTV Dhinakaran, on the ground of defection. Justice Sundar disagrees. Since the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee and Justice Sundar gave a split verdict, the case may be referred to a third judge. Since CJ has differed with companion judge, third judge will be nominated by Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh. Till he decides, no elections for 18 constituencies, no floor test. Saga continues @the_hindu Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh will nominate the third judge for the matter. No floor test or fresh polls will be held till this the final verdict is given. While Chief Justice Indira Banerjee found no scope of interference with Speaker Dhanpal's order, Justice M Sundar found that his decision is liable to be set aside. "Actually the verdict gives some more life to the existing anti people's government," TTV Dhinakaran said speaking to reporters after the Madras High Court gave a split verdict. He said that the loyal MLAs were chosen by "Amma" Jayalalithaa and her people. "They have undergone severe trauma over the last few months," he said. Judges split over disqualification; Dhinakaran says verdict will only give 'some more life' to Palaniswamy govt Speaking to reporters, TTV Dhinakaran called it a fight for ideology. He said, "In Thursday's verdict, one judge has said the Speaker's decision was wrong. The chief justice (Indira Banerjee) who has upheld the Speaker's order had struck down Puducherry Speaker's decision. How can the law be different for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry?" There is a question mark on judiciary after this decision, says Dhinakaran The senior-most judge after her will decide the third judge who would hear the matter afresh, Justice Banerjee said. The split verdict has come as a big relief to the AIADMK government headed by Palaniswami as any possible threat to its stability has been averted for now. In the keenly-awaited judgment, Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the 18 September order of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal disqualifying the MLAs, while Justice M Sundar disagreed with her and struck it down. In a relief to the Palaniswami government, the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on the petitions challenging disqualification of 18 AIADMK legislators loyal to sidelined leader TTV Dhinakaran.<doc-sep>‘With much to lose, MLAs will support govt’ TOI CHENNAI: The Madras high court will pronounce the verdict in the 18 legislators' disqualification case on Thursday, ending almost five months of wait after the judgment was reserved. The first bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar is likely to give the judgment around 1pm.The verdict would throw up several possibilities. If the MLAs lose the case, the government would stay. Its vulnerability will, however, be exposed in the subsequent byelections to the 18 assembly segments. If the MLAs win the case and vote against the government, it could fall. In the 234-member assembly, if all the members vote, the government would need 117 votes (excluding the speaker) for a simple majority. That is four more than its current tally of 113 MLAs.Indicating how the game could be played out if they win the case, rebel leader Thangatamilselvan told TOI that his intention is not to pull down "Amma's government", but to get what is due to them.A majority of rebels appear to be keen on just driving a hard bargain with chief minister Edappadi K Palaniswami . The Centre, too, doesn’t appear to be keen on destabilising the government.Since the disqualification, the power matrix has changed in the rebel camp. Many among the 18 MLAs have been murmuring about T T V Dhinakaran ’s authoritarian way of functioning. V Dhivaharan, another power centre in the Mannargudi family, has revolted against Dhinakaran. None of the rebels are confident of winning another election if they pull down the government. “Like us, they too know their weakness. When there is nothing to gain and much to lose, the rebel MLAs would come around and support the government,” said a senior minister.DMK president M Karunanidhi has not been attending the assembly proceedings for more than a year owing to ill health, but DMK spokesman T K S Elangovan toldthat if the situation demands, Karunanidhi would be brought to the assembly to cast vote”.<doc-sep>CHENNAI: Setting the suspense in motion for some more time, the Madras high court on Thursday passed a split verdict in the case against disqualification of the 18 rebel AIADMK MLAs in Tamil Nadu.While the Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the disqualification order passed by Tamil Nadu assembly Speaker P Dhanapal, Justice M Sundar quashed the speaker’s order.As a result, the cases would be referred to a third judge who would pronounce his opinion. The majority view would be considered the judgement.Had the verdict gone either way, the government would have been in trouble. If the disqualification had been upheld, byelections would been held in 18 constituencies and the DMK winning them would have reduced the Edappadi K Palaniswami government to a minority. If the court had quashed the disqualification, there could have been two scenarios -- the MLAs joining hands with the DMK to pull down the government; and some of the MLAs supporting the government to ensure all survive.On September 18, based on the complaint made by the AIADMK party whip S Rajendran against the legislators after they had met the governor and expressed their lack of confidence in chief minister Edappadi K Palaniswami, the speaker passed the disqualification order.Alleging mala fide on the part of the speaker, the 18 MLAs approached the high court. Admitting their plea on September 20, a single judge of the court stayed conduct of floor test and restrained the Election Commission of India from declaring the constituencies as vacant and conducting bypolls.Since the pleas involved constitutional issues, they were transferred to the first bench headed by the Chief Justice Indira Banerjee. After marathon hearings that lasted several weeks, the first bench reserved its verdict on January 23.<doc-sep>Till the third judge pronounces the verdict, no floor test will be conducted in the House. The first Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict in a batch of cases filed by 18 AIADMK MLAs challenging their disqualification under the anti-defection law, with Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upholding the Speaker’s September 18, 2017 order and Justice M. Sundar setting it aside. In view of the differing judgments, the cases will be argued afresh before a third judge. Third judge to hear cases Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh, the senior-most judge after the Chief Justice, will nominate the third judge. Meanwhile, acceding to a request from senior counsel P.S. Raman and N. Raja Senthoor Pandian for the disqualified MLAs, the Division Bench extended an interim order restraining the conduct of elections to the 18 constituencies that had fallen vacant after the disqualification and a trust vote on the floor of the Assembly. In her judgment, Justice Banerjee said: “In my opinion, the view taken by the Speaker [that the 18 MLAs had voluntarily given up membership of the AIADMK by giving representations to the Governor on August 22, 2017, withdrawing support to Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami] is a possible, if not, plausible view. Opportunity denied However, Justice Sundar said the Speaker ought to have given an opportunity to the 18 petitioners to cross-examine at least the secretaries to the Chief Minister to prove their assertion that they had indeed made attempts to solve their differences within the party. Justice Banerjee said, “I am unable to hold that the said decision [of the Speaker] is any way unreasonable, irrational or perverse. It is well settled that when two views are possible, the High Court does not in exercise of its power of judicial review, conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, interfere with the decision just because it prefers the other view.” Pointing out that the writ petitioners had not stopped short of expressing no confidence on the Chief Minister but had also gone ahead and called upon the Governor to “initiate the constitutional process,” the Chief Justice asked: “The question is what does this mean? What is it that the Governor could do?” Governor’s options She went on to agree with senior counsel C. Aryama Sundaram appearing for the Speaker and C.S. Vaidyanathan representing the Chief Minister, that following the MLAs’ representations, the Governor could have either recommended imposition of President’s rule or called for a floor test due to which the AIADMK government would have collapsed. Further, stating that the 18 MLAs had not produced any document to show that they had requisitioned a meeting of the party for selection of some other individual as Chief Minister or to show that they had suggested any other alternative name, the Chief Justice said intra party differences on leadership should have been sorted within the party. Though the 18 petitioners had accused the Speaker of bias because he had failed to initiate disqualification proceedings against Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and his team of MLAs who voted against the government in the floor test held on February 18, Justice Banerjee rejected the charge. “May be, as argued on behalf of the writ petitioners, notice should at least have been issued as soon as the disqualification petition was filed (against Mr. Panneerselvam and his team of MLAs) or shortly thereafter. However, inference of bias cannot be drawn from the omission to do so,” she added. ‘Party did not exist’ Jutsice Sundar, however, said a clear, categoric and unambiguous assertion could not be made on the issue of the writ petitioners having voluntarily given up membership of their political party because AIADMK itself did not exist as an entity on August 22, 2017 due to an interim order passed by Election Commission of India (ECI) following a dispute between factions. Pointing out that ECI had then recognised the factions as AIADMK(Amma) and AIADMK (Puratchi Thalaivi Amma), the judge said: “A question of voluntarily giving up membership of AIADMK political party, in whose ticket a legislator was elected, could not at all have been answered conclusively in this period.” Though the Speaker had referred to a demand for floor test made by the Leader of the Opposition M.K. Stalin on the day when the 18 petitioners met the Governor and alleged that they were working in cahoots, Justice Sundar said: “The action of Mr. Stalin appears to be very natural and on expected lines... it is only natural that the leader of the opposition will try to seize the moment.” ‘Perverse and mala fide’ He then he set aside the Speaker’s order on the ground that it was hit by perversity, non compliance with principles of natural justice, mala fide (since the 19th MLA S.T.K. Jakkaiyan, who also met the Governor, had been let off by the Speaker just because he back tracked on his decision) and violation of the constitutional mandate.<doc-sep>
If the court cancels the disqualification of the 18 lawmakers, the state government could collapse. The ruling AIADMK has 116 lawmakers, excluding the Speaker, in the 234-member assembly, one short of the majority mark. Recently, three more lawmakers extended their support to the rebel camp led by VK Sasikala's nephew TTV Dhinakaran, bringing down the AIADMK's numbers to 113 - four short of a majority - should there be a trust vote. The opposition DMK has 89 and Mr Dhinakaran is the lone Independent legislator. There would be no threat to the government if the disqualification is upheld as the effective strength of the house would come down to 215. But that would also clear the way for bypolls to 18 seats, which could be an acid test for the AIADMK. The 18 AIADMK lawmakers were disqualified in September last year, for writing to then Governor C Vidyasagar Rao withdrawing support to Mr Palaniswami and asking for his replacement. They had made it clear they were not withdrawing support to the AIADMK government. The Speaker had acted on the request of the AIADMK, which argued in the assembly that the rebels had tried to topple the state government and therefore had violated the anti-defection law. Sources in the ruling party say they are confident of their numbers. If the disqualification is cancelled, they say a few of the rebels in Mr Dhinakaran's camp are bound to return to the party fold. If the verdict of the two-judge bench - comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar - is split, the case will be referred to a larger bench, in which case there would be no immediate threat to the government. Another option could be the court asking the Speaker to reconsider his decision. This could lead the way for a rethink by the Speaker on some rebels if they express regret. These lawmakers may support Mr Palaniswami, bringing some relief to the party. The outcome of the case may open up a fresh round of legal tussle and political squabbling within the AIADMK, a party that has seen an intense power struggle since former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's death in 2016. After Jayalalithaa died, Ms Sasikala, her lifelong companion, took over the reins of the party and was tipped to be Chief Minister but had to go to jail following her conviction in a corruption case. The party split into two factions, led by Mr Palaniswami and O Pannerseelvam.