The Madras High Court was informed on Wednesday that Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami is in possession of documents to prove that the 18 disqualified AIADMK MLAs had signed a resolution hailing the performance of the State government around the same time when they submitted a letter to the Governor on August 22 expressing no confidence on the Chief Minister after accusing him of corruption, nepotism and inefficiency.
Senior counsel C. Aryama Sundaram, representing Speaker P. Dhanapal, made the submission before Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar during the hearing of writ petitions filed by the individuals challenging their disqualification. He said senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing on behalf of the Chief Minister, would show the documents when the latter commences his arguments on December 18.
Arguing for nearly four hours, Mr. Sundaram contended that the disqualification order was neither perverse nor fraught with mala fides. He disputed the claim of principles of natural justice having been thrown to the winds and pointed out that the petitioners enjoyed about 28 days’ time, between August 22 and September 14 when the disqualification order was passed, to rebut the charge of defection.
Interjecting during the arguments, Mr. Justice Sundar asked him to address two important issues. First, whether the 18 writ petitioners had exhausted all intra party grievance redressal mechanisms, as claimed by them, before approaching the Governor. Secondly, if it was correct that the petitioners had not threatened to defy the whip if a floor test had been conducted following their revolt against the CM.
Responding, Mr. Sundaram said there was no iota of evidence to prove the petitioners’ claims. The sole stimulus for their action was a letter written by sidelined leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran on August 21 instructing them to approach the Governor and give a letter expressing no confidence on Mr. Palaniswami.
However, the judge interrupted again to say: “Whether this was a sole stimulus as contended by you or the last straw on the camel’s back as claimed by them is what that has to be tested within the permissible parameters of judicial review.” However, Mr Sundaram said the wordings of the petitioners’ letters to the Governor would show clearly that they had positioned themselves “ultra party” and not intra party.
The Speaker had taken several factors into consideration before arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners would have certainly voted against the government if a floor test was ordered. “If they had been banging their heads for six weeks within the party, as claimed by them, why is there not a word mentioned about it in the letter given to the Governor,” he questioned.
Mr. Sundaram also contended that the petitioners’ argument of the Speaker having acted on the basis of a copy of an “unsigned and unverified” letter given by them to the Governor would not hold water since the petitioners had not denied the fact of having given a letter to the Governor. “It is true that what was before me was an unsigned and unverified letter. It is a matter of fact, but it is also a matter of fact that the petitioners have admitted to have given such a letter,” he added.
After hearing him at length, the judges adjourned further hearing in the case to December 18.
