Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing DMK whip R. Sakkarapani, on Tuesday accused former Minister S. Semmalai of having committed perjury. He claimed that a false statement had been made in the court that no direction or party line whip was issued to AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam for the floor test held on February 18, 2017.
Arguing a case to disqualify Mr. Panneerselvam and his team of MLAs for having voted against the government in defiance of their party whip, before Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose, the senior counsel said the former Minister had taken three different stands on the issue. He pointed out that in an affidavit filed before the Election Commission on March 16, 2017, it had been claimed that a whip was indeed issued under the seal of AIADMK.
However, in the counter-affidavit filed in reply to the DMK whip’s present case, Mr. Semmalai had said: “In the first place, there has never been a direction issued to the respondents (Mr. Panneerselvam and his team of MLAs) to follow, and therefore, there could be no question of action against the respondents under the Tenth Schedule (which provides for disqualification of legislators on the ground of defection) to the Constitution.”
Further, in another counter affidavit filed in response to a similar case filed by disqualified AIADMK MLAs P. Vetrivel and others belonging to the T.T.V. Dhinakaran camp, Mr. Semmalai had said that no whip was issued to Mr. Panneerselvam and his team of MLAs for last year’s floor test. “This is perjury. The averments made in the counter-affidavits are entirely contrary to submissions made before the Election Commission,” Mr. Sibal said.
He also said that as per law, Mr. Semmalai could not file a common counter-affidavit on behalf of Mr. Panneerselvam and eight other MLAs. The counter affidavit at best could be assumed to be a defence taken by him alone and as far as others were concerned, they must be construed to have accepted the allegations levelled against the DMK whip since they had not filed individual counter affidavits in the court, he added.
Senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing Mr. Vetrivel and others, said a political party could not be expected to issue individual whips to each of its MLAs. Wondering how the Speaker could not initiate any action against MLAs who had voted against the government in defiance of their party whip, he said: “When one constitutional authority (Speaker) goes into slumber, Your Lordships being the other constitutional authority should step in,” he said.
A counsel representing MLA R. Natraj, also a former Director General of Police, said that the court could not order him to have been disqualified on a writ petition filed by the DMK whip without giving him an opportunity to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence besides an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. He said that Mr. Natraj was not among the AIADMK MLAs who were lodged in a resort at Koovathur near here before the floor test.
After hearing all sides, the judges posted the case for submission of written arguments on Monday.
