Observing that a statement made by AIADMK spokesperson Gowri Shankar during a television talk show on February 22 “would prima facie give an impression that respondents 4 to 8 (Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami and four other Ministers) are taking instructions from a third party (disproportionate assets case convict V.K. Sasikala) and they are not maintaining secrecy,” the Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday ordered notice to all of them.
Passing a detailed interim order on a public interest litigation petition, a Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan also said: “We have perused the documents available on record. The statement made by the spokesperson of the AIADMK on February 22 is a matter of record. Similarly, it is the admitted case that the respondents 5 to 8 met Sasikala at the Parappana Agrahara Prison on February 28, 2017,” the High Court Bench said.
“There was no denial by the respondents 4 to 8 (the Chief Minister, Minister for Forests ‘Dindigul’ C. Sreenivasan, School Education Minister K.A. Sengottaiyan, Minister for Cooperation ‘Sellur’ K. Raju and Minister for Food and Civil Supplies R. Kamaraj) of the statement by the AIADMK spokesperson that the government is being run by Sasikala who is undergoing sentence.”
“The respondents 4 to 8 are expected to deny the statement given by the spokesperson with regard to sharing of information by the Ministers with the General Secretary of the party and the allegation regarding her involvement in the day-to-day administration of the government. We are, therefore, of the view that notice should be issued to the respondents 4 to 8 so as to enable them to offer their comments in respect of the allegations regarding violation of oath of secrecy.”
OPS’s resignation
The judges also recorded in detail submissions made by the petitioner, T. Analagan, son of former AIADMK MLA R. Thamarai Kani, with regard to a host of political events that unfolded in the State after the death of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on December 6 and the events recorded in the interim order included the alleged forced resignation of her successor O. Panneerselvam, his revolt against the party high command and subsequent confinement of MLAs in a resort at Koovathur.
Stating that Sasikala was convicted by the Supreme Court in a disproportionate assets case on February 14 and sentenced to four years of imprisonment, the petitioner said the four Ministers met her in prison and made a public statement that they discussed issues related to functioning of the government with her. Mr. Analagan also claimed that the Chief Minister did not object to such a statement despite being the head of the Council of Ministers.
He contended that the Chief Minister as well as the four Ministers were liable to be disqualified from being Ministers as well as MLAs for having allegedly violated the oath of office, oath of secrecy and oaths or affirmations made by them before and also after being elected as MLAs in accordance with Article 188 of the Constitution. He sought a direction to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to forward two representations made by him in this regard to the Governor for appropriate action.
