The Madras High Court on Wednesday admitted a writ petition by Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) president and Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Vijayakant, challenging his 10-day suspension from the House by a resolution.
When the petition came up before Justice S. Rajeswaran, the Government Pleader took notice for the Assembly Secretary. The Judge ordered that the matter be posted for March 2 to enable the respondent to argue the matter with regard to both maintainability of the writ petition and the application seeking stay of the operation of the impugned resolution.
Mr. Vijayakant sought a declaration that the resolution adopted on February 2 by the Assembly was illegal and null and void.
In the petition, filed through counsel, S.Manimaran, Mr.Vijayakant said the Assembly Secretary by a letter dated February 3 informed him that a resolution had been passed by the House that he should be suspended from participating in the proceedings in the session that was under way and also in the next session continuously for 10 days.
Also, during the suspension period, he would not be entitled to pecuniary benefits, salary, concessions and other privileges in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition and MLA with effect from February 2.
He was directed to surrender the car allotted to him to the Assembly Secretary's office.
Mr. Vijayakant said he could not even receive and forward petitions regarding the legitimate grievances of the people of his constituency (Rishivanthiyam) to the government authorities for redressal.
He had been forbidden from attending any government meeting.
He said that by denying him his position as MLA, the people who had elected him as their representative had lost their right and opportunity to redress their grievances through him. This would amount to penalising the electors.
Even the copy of the privileges committee's report was not furnished to him.
A copy was collected by him from the House Secretariat only after he was suspended.
Thus, all principles of natural justice had been violated.
He submitted that the resolution could not in itself seek to remove or prevent him from exercising his right as an elected representative outside the House.
When a person was elected as the Leader of the Opposition, it was a post which carried with it high responsibilities and indeed the post enjoyed a Cabinet Minister rank.
This privilege could not be interfered with by the ruling party through a voice vote resolution as it would amount to interfering with the working of the opposition party itself.
