CHENNAI: The AIADMK on Wednesday questioned the rationale and legality of Speaker choosing not to be represented in the high court in connection with the petitions filed by the party challenging his decision to accept the resignation of four MLAs.
Senior counsel V Giri raised the question while advancing arguments on behalf of AIADMK whip Agri S S Krishnamurthy before the first division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on the petitions filed against the Speaker’s acceptance of the resignation and subsequent notification.
He said the Speaker chose not to ‘enter appearance’ before the court even after he was issued with notice, but the Assembly secretary has filed a counter-affidavit stating she was authorised to do so on his behalf.
“The Speaker shall have to submit to the jurisdiction of the court,” he stated, adding, thereafter he can say he has authorised the secretary. The counsel further said the Speaker does not have the constitutional immunity as enjoyed by high constitutional authorities such as governors.
Alleging that the resignation letters of the four MLAs were accepted at lightning speed, Giri said the Speaker had completely ignored his constitutional duty of holding an ‘inquiry’ before accepting the resignation, as he had the information that the MLAs concerned had violated the whip and that disqualification proceedings were pending.
“Article 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution compels the Speaker to hold an inquiry but the constitutional requirement was given the go-by,” the counsel said.
The court adjourned the hearing to August 17.
