CHENNAI: Experts differed in their views on the disqualification of 18 MLAs who rebelled against Chief Minister ‘Edappadi’ K Palaniswami. Former Speaker ‘Sedapatti’ R Muthaiah told Express that due process under the anti-defection law had not been followed. The law provided only two grounds for disqualifying an MLA: “If he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs, or if he votes or abstains from voting in House contrary to any direction issued by his political party.”
In this case, while giving letters withdrawing their support to Palaniswami, the MLAs were specific that they had not given up their AIADMK membership. But, the Speaker has taken this action on the ground that they had given up their membership voluntarily, Muthaiah pointed out, stating that the disqualification was not valid under the law. Citing another technicality, he noted that Rule 6 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (disqualification on the ground of defection) Rules -1986 is particular that the ruling party furnish documentary evidence to prove that the MLAs have left the party. “In this case, there is no explicit material evidence to prove the charges against the rebels. Also, Rule 7 (i) says if the petition does not comply with the requirements of Rule 6, the Speaker shall dismiss the petition,” Muthaiah said.
Another veteran legislator, who did not wish to be identified, raised the question of the copies of the letters that MLAs handed over to the Governor reaching the party chief whip. “In the normal course, the Governor should forward these to the Chief Minister and seek an explanation. The Chief Minister should communicate only to the Governor and should not share it with anyone else, including the Whip or Speaker. However, in this case, the letters have gone to the party whip, which could be looked upon as a breach of Constitution,” the legislator said.
Raising another point, senior lawyer K M Vijayan told Express that the 10th Schedule does not permit disqualification without pointing out any violation of a whip in an in-house proceeding - like not casting vote or casting against the directions of the whip. “In this case, disqualifying them is unconstitutional,” he said. On the other hand, another senior lawyer R Gandhi said the Speaker’s decision was supreme and the court was unlikely to stay the disqualification order. “By giving the letter to the Governor, the MLAs have left the party and joined T T V Dhinakaran. This is nothing but deserting the party,” argued Gandhi, maintaining that the Speaker’s decision would stand the test of law.
On the question as to why the Speaker failed to act against Deputy Chief Minister O Panneerselvam and 11 MLAs when they voted against the government in February, K C Palaniswamy, a former MP and now a key leader of AIADMK, told Express that once the Election Commission recognised the split in the AIADMK, the rebels elected their own whip and followed his directives. “The Speaker could not act as AIADMK (PTA) was functioning as a separate party,” he added.