The Hindu : Stalin loses Mayorship on quo warranto plea

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Sep 07, 2002

Southern States

Southern States - Tamil Nadu

Stalin loses Mayorship on quo warranto plea

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI SEPT. 6. The Chennai Mayor, M.K. Stalin, was today stripped of his post by the Madras High Court, not because of the `one-man, one-post law', but because of a quo warranto petition filed last year stating that under the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, he was not eligible to contest for a second consequent term as Mayor.

Though the First Bench comprising the Chief Justice B. Subhashan Reddy and Justice D. Murugesan declared `unconstitutional' the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act 2002, it accepted the contention of another petitioner, K. Sridhar Kumar, that Mr. Stalin was barred from seeking immediate re-election to the post.

(Mr. Stalin's nomination in elections was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that Section 30 of the MCMC Act barred him from seeking a second consequent term. Admitting the petition on October 12, 2001, the First bench permitted Mr. Stalin to contest subject to the condition that his election would be subject to the result of the writ petition).

The Bench said, "Section 30, in clear terms, states that an outgoing Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall not be eligible for re-election as Mayor of Deputy Mayor, as the case may be, during the period up to the next ordinary election.

"In the instant case, ordinary election for Mayor had occurred by efflux of time of five years in 2001 and since the ordinary election was held on October 16, 2001, which becomes the second consecutive election of Mr. Stalin, he was ineligible to contest for Mayor. Consecutively, Mr. Stalin, who is now the Chennai Mayor, cannot act any further as a Mayor and his seat falls vacant from this day,'' the Bench ruled. It, however, declared void the controversial one-man, one-post law: "It is now too well settled a law that statutes affecting substantive rights are prospective and those relating to procedure are retrospective. "This does not mean that the legislative bodies are prevented from making laws even affecting the substantive rights retrospectively. But there are well-defined limitations in exercising such powers of enacting retrospective legislation affecting substantive rights. The first limitation is that it shall expressly be stated in the statute as having come into effect from the date anterior to the enactment''. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Bench said that only such rights, which could not be said to be vested rights, could be taken away retrospectively.

The Bench also said there were no qualifications or disqualifications prescribed for mayoral candidate. Such conditions as found in Sections 51 and 52 of the Act were applicable only to councillors and the Deputy Mayor. There being no qualification or disqualification mentioned in the Act for the Mayor, what applied to candidates contesting for Mayor were only constitutional provisions contained in Clause (a) to sub-Article (1) of Article 243 V.

"Mr. Stalin does not suffer from any such disqualification. Since Mr. Stalin's tenure of five years is a vested right not only under the statute but also under the Constitution, he cannot be divested of his post by any mode other than those found in Section 44 of the Act. After the judgment was pronounced, the Advocate-General, N.R. Chandran, sought leave to appeal against the order in the Supreme Court. The Bench, however, rejected the plea, stating that no substantial question of law was involved in the matter so as to grant special leave.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

Stories in this Section

Stalin loses Mayorship on quo warranto plea

Govt. may not agree to Nedumaran mediation

Water released from Mettur dam

Power position stable: Minister

Damage control under way at NLC

No room for political mileage, say students

Financial implications of colleges merger move