The Madras High Court on Monday adjourned to November 2 the hearing on a batch of individual writ petitions filed by 18 disqualified AIADMK MLAs, owing allegiance to sidelined party leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran, challenging their disqualification.
In the meantime, an interim order passed by the court on September 20 imposing a bar on conducting bypolls for the 18 constituencies as well as a floor test in the Legislative Assembly will continue.
‘Enough time given’
Justice K. Ravichandra Baabu deferred the hearing after senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami, accused the disqualified MLAs of coming up with fresh written pleadings after the commencement of oral arguments in the case and sought at least a week’s time to reply to an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the MLAs as well as a rejoinder filed by them to the counter-affidavits of the Speaker and the Chief Minister.
Opposing the plea for an adjournment, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some of the 18 MLAs, said: “Never have I seen a phalanx of senior counsel come to the court to take adjournments.”
Stating that he had commenced arguments in the case during the last hearing on October 4 despite the counter-affidavits of the Speaker and the CM having been served on him only when he was arguing the case, Mr. Singhvi questioned how the other side could insist on adjournments.
Stating that copies of the additional affidavit were served on the counsel for the Speaker, the CM and other respondents in the case on October 5 itself, Mr. Singhvi said that the counsel had enough time to file their replies if they wished to do so.
On the other hand, Mr. Vaidyanathan said: “They [MLAs] can’t keep on making additional pleadings. There has to be some procedure particularly after the arguments have commenced. When the matter is part heard, you can’t keep on filing pleadings like this. They must complete the pleadings in full and then argue the case. They started arguing the case on fourth [October 4] and the additional affidavit comes on fifth. How can this be allowed?”
At one stage of the arguments, Mr. Singhvi suggested that he would confine his arguments to the pleadings made in the main affidavit and argue on some other day the basis of the additional affidavit. Objecting to it, Mr. Vaidyanathan said “there cannot be piecemeal arguments” for which Mr. Singhvi retorted: “If additional affidavit is causing you trouble, I am ready to withdraw it. What is your problem now?”
In such a case, Mr. Vaidyanathan insisted that the rejoinder also should be withdrawn since it had been admitted that the contents of both the documents were identical.
In order to put a quietus on the heated arguments, the judge ordered that all written pleadings on behalf of the MLAs should be completed by Tuesday and gave time to the other side to file the replies by October 23. The High Court Registry was directed to list the case for hearing on November 2.
