Chief Government Whip S. Rajendiran, whose complaint to the Assembly Speaker led to the disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran, contended before the Madras High Court on Tuesday that the disqualified MLAs were continuing to indulge in anti-party activities till date by campaigning for Mr. Dhinakaran, who is contesting as an independent candidate in the R.K. Nagar bypoll.
‘Two basic questions’
Presenting his case before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing Mr. Rajendiran, said the 18 MLAs were disqualified on September 18. Events that had taken place since then, including their present conduct in the campaign for the byelection, would leave no speck of doubt that they had voluntarily given up membership of the party, he contended.
The senior counsel said the cases filed by the 18 individuals challenging their disqualification had to be decided by answering two basic questions: “Whether they have voluntarily given up membership of the party in terms of Schedule X to the Constitution, and whether the Speaker gave them ample opportunity to present their case.” In so far as the first question was concerned, he said their conduct was sufficient to prove that they had left the party.
‘In league with Oppn.’
Further, stating that the Speaker had given enough number of adjournments at the asking of the petitioners, Mr. Rohatgi said they failed to submit any substantial material in their defence despite taking sufficient time.
He went on to state that events which unfolded on August 21 and 22 were very significant in the present case.
On August 21, the factions led by Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami and Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam had buried their differences and merged.
On the same day, Mr. Dhinakaran had written a letter to the MLAs, asking them to meet the Governor and express their no confidence in the Chief Minister. A day later, two more things happened. First, the petitioners gave individual letters, the sum and substance of which was to make the government fall, to the Governor, and second, it was followed by a letter written by the Leader of the Opposition to the Governor, demanding a floor test.
“This shows that the MLAs were acting in tandem with the Opposition,” Mr. Rohatgi charged.
Earlier, senior counsel C. Aryama Sundaram, representing Speaker P. Dhanapal, said there were way too many materials before the Speaker to infer from the conduct of the petitioners that they had not only given up membership of the party but were also indulging in anti-party activities that were detrimental to the continuance of the government led by it.
‘No malice’
“Can the High Court tell me, in judicial review, to infer differently than what I have inferred? Unless Your Lordships find that my inference is perverse, Your Lordships are really interfering with my judgment. I have drawn an inference from the conduct of the petitioners. There is no malice in my inference,” he argued. While Mr. Sundaram argued for the first half of the day, Mr. Rohatgi was on his legs during the entire afternoon session.
Since he was yet to complete his arguments, the Division Bench adjourned further hearing on the case to January 9.
