Murasoli justifies speaker’s stance on MLA seating arrangement in House
CHENNAI: The ruling DMK’s party organ, Murasoli, has defended the Assembly speaker’s decision not to grant a seat to RB Udhayakumar next to AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami. An editorial on Thursday cited past incidents in the Assembly when a faction of party members deviated from the party’s stance, leading to their identification as a distinct faction within the same party.
AIADMK has been requesting the speaker to allocate a seat for their nominee RB Udhayakumar, who has been proposed as the deputy opposition leader, adjacent to Palaniswami after the removal of O Panneerselvam from the party.
The editorial went on to recall previous instances of seat allocation for members who either opposed the party’s official stance or were expelled from the party, particularly during the AIADMK-led governments in the state. In each case, it was emphasised that the speaker exercised discretionary power to make such decisions.
During the AIADMK regime from 2001 to 2006, the Tamil Manila Congress and Congress merged. Subsequently, five MLAs of the TMC, led by D Kumaradas, opposed the party’s decision to merge with Congress and submitted a letter to the then speaker, K Kalimuthu. At that time, the speaker recognised them as TMC MLAs against the majority decision of the MLAs. Even after the Election Commission de-recognised the TMC following the party’s appeal and information about the merger with Congress, the then speaker maintained that they would remain TMC members due to his discretionary power.
Commenting on the editorial, veteran political journalist D Karthik told TNIE, “By justifying the stance of the speaker, the DMK has indirectly said that it is also the party’s decision. At the same time, DMK should be prepared to face the same kind of decision based on the administrative and discretionary powers of the speaker in the future if the party happens to face such a split.”
Political observer V Srinivasa Sarma said if no specific rules apply, and the decision rests solely on the speaker’s discretionary power. He should honour the letter submitted by the AIADMK rather than prolonging the issue. Sarma said the speaker’s rigid stance on discretionary power could damage the DMK’s image, portraying it as supporting Panneerselvam to split the AIADMK. This might have adverse effects on both OPS and the DMK.