CHENNAI: Siding with the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, Justice M Sathyanarayanan, the third judge nominated by Supreme Court to decide the fate of 18 rebel MLAs owing allegiance to TTV Dhinakaran, on Thursday held that the Speaker has the power to disqualify the MLAs.
Delivering his 475-page judgment in a packed hall on Thursday, the judge also vacated the stay granted earlier, which restrained the Election Commission from declaring the seats as vacant and proceeding with holding elections to the 18 Assembly constituencies, which fell vacant due to the dismissal of the writ petitions. The judge was dismissing a batch of writ petitions from P Vetrivel and 17 others, seeking to quash an order dated September 18, 2017 of the Speaker, published in the Gazette on the same day as unauthorised, illegal and without jurisdiction as per the binding law in B S Yeddyurappa and others cases and consequently forbear the Speaker from interfering with their right as an elected representative.
Passing orders on the writ petitions on June 14, the then Chief Justice Indira Banerjee had held that the Speaker had the necessary power to disqualify the 18 members. Whereas, Justice M Sundar differed with her view and held to the contrary. Hence, the matter was referred to a third judge Sathyanarayanan for the majority opinion.
After hearing the elaborate arguments by eminent senior counsel for both sides, the judge on August 31 had reserved his orders.
Delivering the order on Thursday, the judge noted that the high constitutional office of the Speaker is always considered as the respectable position in tune with the said office and the Speaker is expected to be not only impartial but should be perceptible. In the impugned order, the Speaker had dealt with the preliminary issues and the main issues and reached the conclusion on consideration and appreciation of the material placed before him. It is a settled position of law that an order is not invalid merely because by a process of interference and if the decision of the Speaker is a possible and plausible view, this court cannot substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of law and facts, to reach an altogether different conclusion.
It is also a well-settled position of law that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and on the issue of law the court has to take into consideration the ratio and follow the precedents.
In the opinion of the court, though initially, it appears that Yeddyurappa’s case would apply to the facts of this case, however, it turned out to be distinguishable.
In the opinion of the court, the Speaker had considered all the relevant material and though it is vehemently submitted that he has placed reliance upon extraneous and irrelevant material and in doing so, has not afforded any opportunity whatsoever to refute the same, in the light of the above discussion, the court finds that there was material on record to prove that the Speaker has taken cognisance of the same and on appreciation, reached the conclusion.
The allegation of bias and mala fides has also not been substantiated for the reason that the Speaker is the sole authority to decide the issue relating to disqualification.
Though an argument was advanced that since bias and mala fides had been alleged against the Speaker, he should have relegated the adjudicatory function to a Committee in terms of Rule 7 (4) of the Disqualification Rules, the Speaker has dealt with the said petition in paragraph 28 of the impugned order and held that the instances of bias according to the petitioners set out in the petition are relating to matters not germane or relevant to the present issue.
“This court, on an independent application of mind to the material, placed and on careful scrutiny and appreciation of the entire material placed and after giving a thorough consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, is of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the reasons assigned by the Speaker did not suffer on the grounds of breach of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance of the rules or natural justice and no perversity is attached to the reasons assigned by the Speaker to disqualify the petitioners”, the judge said and dismissed all the writ petitions.