CHENNAI: The arguments in the quo warranto writ petitions against ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, PK Sekar Babu and DMK MP A Raja in the Sanatana Dharma row wound up on Thursday.
Justice Anita Sumanth, who was hearing the matter, gave a week’s time to both sides to submit their written arguments.
Senior counsel P Wilson, N Jothi and R Viduthalai, appearing for Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu and Raja respectively, wrapped up their arguments harping on the right to free speech and the court’s limitations in deciding disqualification of legislators.
Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution, Viduthalai said the constitutional precepts of equality, fraternity, etc. are rather promoted by the MP in condemning the undesirable and unconstitutional facets of the sanatana dharma than violating the provisions of the Constitution.
He also emphasised that the doctrine of separation of powers propounded by the Constitution and recognized by the courts in India does not enable the high court to unseat an elected member of Parliament or state legislature by issuance of a writ of quo warranto unless there is an anterior adjudication about his disqualification by the competent authority.
Similarly, Wilson submitted that prescribing the disqualifications for MPs and MLA s is the sole prerogative of the Parliament under Article 191(e) and that the courts should respect the separation of powers. He appealed the court not to transgress into the exclusive domain of the legislature and prescribe any additional disqualification.
However, senior counsel TV Ramanujam, representing one of the petitioners, said it is needless to go into the provisions of disqualification under Article 191 or the provisions of chapter 3 of Representation of People Act (1951) to find an answer to whether the courts have powers under Article 226 to int e r vene in suc h situation. “There is a void in the constitution in this regard.
Hence, regardless of those provisions, this court has wide powers under Article 226 to hold that this writ petition is maintainable and grant a writ of quo warranto,” he urged the court. The counsel sought the court to exercise its power to ‘mould the relief ’ and pass a declaration or direction to hold that the action of Udhayanidhi as unconstitutional.
G Rajagopalan, senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, said the Minister heading the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) must be professing the Hinduism, and so, should not have participated in the conference. His presence in the event has proved that he may not be professing Hinduism. Senior counsel G Karthikeyan submitted that the declaration of Udhayanidhi to eradicate sanatana dharma is a fraud played on the Constitution and necessary action has to follow.
During the hearing, Wilson and Jothi objected to comments by Rajagopalan that the chief minister only says that he respects all religions but does not convey greetings on Hindu festivals. They countered it by noting that the CM usually greets the people on Pongal and most of the members of DMK are Hindus, and that the party came to power by securing votes of majority of Hindus
Madras HC gets two more judges
Chennai: Chief Justice of Madras High Court SV Gangapurwala administered the oath of office to two new judges- Vivek Kumar Singh and M Sudheer Kumar- on Thursday. With their induction, the strength of Madras High Court has increased to 67 against a sanctioned strength of 75. Vivek Kumar Singh was transferred from Allahabad High Court while Sudheer Kumar was moved from Telangana High Court.