The Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee on Monday agreed with a public interest litigation petitioner that it was not right on the part of 124 AIADMK MLAs to have stayed in a resort on the outskirts of the city during February 2017 when the entire State was facing a political turmoil.
She expressed her disapproval during the hearing of the petition filed by K. Ravi questioning the validity of a motion of confidence moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami on February 18, 2017, and declared to have been passed by Speaker P. Dhanapal following a voice vote in which 122 AIADMK MLAs voted in favour of the motion.
Leading the first Division Bench along with Justice P.T. Asha, the Chief Justice lamented that the practice of MLAs staying in resorts during instances of political instability had become a common phenomenon.
In his arguments, the petitioner, an advocate, contended that the passage of the motion of confidence on February 18 would get vitiated on grounds that all the 122 MLAs were lodged in a resort before voting, they were brought to the Assembly as a cohort, they were issued with an “illegal” whip and there was complete pandemonium in the Assembly during voting.
Political ripples
The petitioner recalled that the Supreme Court had on February 14, 2017, convicted AIADMK’s then general secretary V.K. Sasikala and sentenced her to four years imprisonment. The judgment created political ripples in the State since she had planned to become the Chief Minister.
“The judgment was delivered at 10.30 a.m. and it would have taken at least 15 minutes for the judges to read it out.
“However, curiously, at 10.45 a.m., a group of 124 AIADMK MLAs, who were lodged in a resort at Koovathur on the outskirts of the city, claimed to have passed an unanimous resolution to elect Mr. Palaniswamy as the leader of their legislative party,” he said.
Wondering how could the MLAs have applied their mind and elected a leader in such a short time, the petitioner said it was a shame that as many as 124 MLAs of the State were staying in a resort when the entire State was facing a political turmoil. “We all know why does one resort to a resort. No one goes to a resort to do serious business,” Mr. Ravi said.
Arguing further, he said the motion of confidence was no different from an election since it was actually a process of the MLAs electing their legislative party leader. When such was the case, he wondered how could the MLAs have been transported to the Assembly on February 18 in a convoy belonging to the Ministers in whose favour they had voted.
The petitioner also said that the issuance of a whip to the MLAs was illegal since no whip could be issued to an MLA to elect a particular leader. When Mr. Justice Asha pointed out that the Chief Government Whip S. Rajendiran had only made a request to the MLAs, the petitioner said the character of the whip would not change by the use of a soft language.
Quoting a couplet from Tamil treatise Tirukkural, Mr. Ravi said: “The couplet means that if a person holding a spear in his hands seeks alms, we should either give him what he wants or end up paying for not giving him what he wants. Therefore, a whip is a whip though it could be couched as a request.”
Further, the pandemonium that ensued in the Assembly with the opposition members standing on their seats, creating a ruckus by sitting on the Speaker’s chair and getting ousted from the House with the assistance of police officers clad in the uniform of Assembly guards also vitiated the passage of the motion of confidence, he claimed.
Contending that the Speaker could not claim immunity for the passage of the motion, the petitioner said such immunity could be sought only for the proceedings such as a no confidence motion which takes place after the formation of the government and therefore becomes a part of the legislative functions of the House.
“A motion of confidence stands on a different footing because it takes place before the Legislative Assembly begins formal business. Therefore, this court can always interfere and hold that the passage of the motion of confidence was illegal, unconstitutional and null and void,” he argued.
However, after hearing his lengthy and elaborate arguments, the Chief Justice wondered how could the court interfere on the issue when the 122 MLAs, who reportedly voted in favour of the motion of confidence, had neither denied having done so nor claimed that they had voted under duress.
Disapproving of the practice of MLAs having stayed in a resort when there was political uncertainty in the State, she said: “We agree with you that this should not be the State of affairs, but...” Even before she could complete the sentence, Mr. Ravi quipped: “Please do not say, we are helpless. If we say that we will be letting down our next generation.”
The Chief Justice received the response with a smile and adjourned the case to July 9 for further arguments.
