Opinion is divided among political leaders and legal experts over the manner in which the vote of confidence motion was adopted in the Legislative Assembly on Saturday.
Strongly justifying Speaker P. Dhanapal’s action, S.R. Balasubramoniyan, now AIADMK Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and three-time Member of the Legislative Assembly, says the Speaker has adhered to the rule book and there was no violation of norms.
The sitting of the House on Saturday was a sequel to the direction of Governor Ch. Vidyasagar Rao to Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami to prove majority within 15 days. “I do not understand the demand for adjourning the House for a week as otherwise this could have given room for allegations of horse trading. By having the sitting today, the scope for such a charge has been eliminated,” he explained. N.G.R. Prasad, advocate, says that even though the Assembly had witnessed pandemonium, there was no procedural irregularity with regard to the adoption of the motion. As per the Supreme Court judgement in the S.R. Bommai case, the majority had to be proved on the floor of the House, which had been accomplished in the given instance.
Case for secret ballot
However, V. Suresh, general secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), says there should have been secret voting, as it would have reduced the possibility of acrimony.
Emphasising that the Speaker should be “non-partisan, non-arbitrary and absolutely fair,” Mr. Suresh says he had to be seen as being above board, given the charges that a large number of the ruling party MLAs were kept in captivity.
V. P. Duraisamy, former Deputy Speaker, argues that when the House gets adjourned, a motion taken up earlier lapses. The way the vote of confidence motion was adopted can be challenged in a court of law. He also criticises Mr. Dhanapal for having raised the caste card.
