Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and 10 AIADMK MLAs, who voted against the Edappadi K Palaniswami government on the floor of the Assembly a year ago, have contended that they did not defy any whip of the ruling party. According to them, the petition filed by DMK whip R Sakkarapani seeking to disqualify them was an attempt to destablise the government and “create issues” within the ruling party.
In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 11 MLAs, before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose, former minister S. Semmalai said the DMK whip had no locus standi to file such a writ petition. “This is clearly an attempt exhibiting collusion” between DMK and the 18 disqualified AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran, the counter stated.
“In the first place, there has never been a direction issued to the respondents to follow and therefore there could be no question of action against the respondents under the Tenth Schedule (disqualification on grounds of defection) to the Constitution,” the counter affidavit said.
‘Undue influence’
However, during the course of arguments on Tuesday, advocate N. Raja Senthoor Pandian, representing disqualified MLA P. Vetrivel who had also filed a separate writ petition with a similar plea, countered the argument by producing a petition submitted by Mr. Panneerselvam and his team before the Election Commission of India (ECI) on March 16, 2017 when they were at loggerheads with Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami. The petition read: “Under the undue influence, coercion and illegal influence by the respondents (V.K. Sasikala and her supporters who then included the incumbent Chief Minister), a whip was issued under the AIADMK’s party seal. As per the whip issued, the MLAs of the party were directed to vote in favour of appointment of Mr. Palaniswami as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Eleven MLAs of AIADMK party, including the petitioners herein, publicly opposed his candidature as CM.”
After referring to the petition, Senior Counsel Amarendra Sharan, representing the DMK whip, contended that Mr. Panneerselvam and his team of MLAs had no right to continue to be members of the House even for a single minute after the February 18 trust vote and their continuation till date was per se illegal. Further, referring to Supreme Court’s 2007 verdict in the famous Rajendra Singh Rana’s case, he said the court could itself could declare them to have been disqualified.
The Speaker P. Dhanapal remained unrepresented in the case since he had refused to accept notices issued to him. Nevertheless, the Assembly Secretary K. Boopathy filed a counter affidavit and questioned the locus standi of the DMK whip in filing such a writ petition without even having given any representation to the Speaker.
He pointed out that only Mr. Vetrivel and five other MLAs had given a representation on March 20 to disqualify Mr. Panneerselvam and his team.
“As has always been the case, as soon as the Speaker received the petition, he had passed on the same to my office for verification if the same was in order... My predecessor in office had made necessary notation and handed over the file back to the Speaker for his further direction on May 10, 2017. The Speaker had thereafter made necessary observations on the petitions filed,” Mr. Boopathy said and undertook to produce the files in court, if necessary.
