The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on July 11 a petition filed by Tamil Nadu MLA 'Mafoi' K. Pandiarajan seeking quashing of the February 18 confidence vote, which saw the then Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam lose his chief ministerial chair to V.K. Sasikala’s choice, Edappadi K. Palaniswamy.
A Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra also sought the aid of Attorney General K.K. Venugopal in the matter, especially on the cardinal plea for a trust vote in the State Assembly through secret ballot.
Mr. Pandiarajan, an MLA with the Panneerselvam faction, termed the February 18 resolution of the 234-member strong Legislative Assembly, expressing confidence in favour of the Council of Ministers led by Mr. Palaniswamy as “illegal, capricious, discriminatory and violative of the principle of ‘secrecy’ which is the essence of democracy, free and fair elections, and the voter’s freedom of expression, which constitutes one of the basic features of our Constitution”.
The writ petition filed under Article 32 through Supreme Court advocate Sunil Fernandes sought the Supreme Court to direct the Assembly Speaker Dhanapal to conduct a fresh Vote of Confidence motion in favour of Mr. Palaniswamy.
It said that this time it should be a secret ballot conducted in the presence of independent and impartial observers nominated by the Supreme Court.
The petition said that the public mood is against the political machinations of Ms. Sasikala and her faction within the AIADMK.
“The request for secret ballot to decide the Confidence Motion on was rejected by the Speaker without any justifiable basis especially when there were specific averments and complaints that the MLAs belonging to the AIADMK (including some of the MLAs from the group of 11 MLAs headed by O. Panneerselvam) were placed under virtual house arrest and extreme duress and their affirmative vote during the proceedings on February 18 was obtained under the threat of force, fraud and coercion,” the petition submitted.
It alleged that Ms. Sasikala, who is now serving her sentence in the Jayalalithaa DA case, and Chief Minister Palaniswamy had “forcibly held the 122 MLAs belonging to the AIADMK Legislative Party as hostage at the Golden Bay Resort, from 08.02.2017 till right before the voting on 18.02.2017,” the petition contended.
Several habeas corpus petitions were filed by the worried relatives of the MLAs seeking their whereabouts before the Madras High Court.
“The Speaker did not accede to the reasonable request for an adjournment of the confidence motion so that the MLAs could ineract with their constituencies and gauge the public mood which was definitely against the Sasikala faction.
“The undue haste in which the proceedings took place on 18.02.2017, and the complete lack of transparency and propriety shown by the Speaker in continuing the voting process, and that too not through Secret Ballot, is arbitrary, mala fide, and ought to be quashed,” petition contended.
