Tamil Nadu: Split verdict in MLAs disqualification case a breather for govt

In a breather to Tamil Nadus AIADMK government led by Chief Minister KPalaniswami the Madras High Court on Thursday gave a split verdict in the case of disqualification of 18 rebel MLAsChief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the disqualification ordered by Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal while Justice M Sundar held the Speakers decision invalid Justice Banerjee said in view of the contradicting judgements the case will now be transferred to a third judge adding that she she will not decide on the third judge and that decision will be taken by a senior judge most likely Justice Kuluvadi RameshMaintaining status quo the court also said till the case is finally decided the interim order issued earlier that barred holding of byelections and floor test in the Assembly continue to be valid Responding to the judgment rebel leader TTV Dinakaran said The longevity of the antipeople government now gets extended by couple of months It is not at all a setback for us We got 50 per cent victoryChief Justice Banerjee in her judgment said the Speakers decision could not be called unreasonable and need not be interfered with by the court but Justice Sundar said he differed citing a Supreme Court judgement to say that the High Court can interfere in the order of the Speaker which was not within the confines of lawHad the judgement gone either way upholding the disqualification or setting aside the Speakers order the AIADMK government would have faced critical problems In case the court had upheld the disqualification then there would have been byelections in 18 constituencies If the DMK won all of them then the governments survival would be in questionOn other hand if the court had quashed the Speakers disqualification order the government may still have to face a noconfidence motion if moved by the DMK The ruling party would also try to win over the 18 legislators now in Dinakaran camp As per the party position in 234member Tamil Nadu assembly the AIADMK has 116 members followed by the DMK with 89 Congress with 8 one of the IUML one Independent the Speaker and 18 vacant seats Besides there is one nominated memberPMK founder SRamadoss said the state government is surviving mainly due to legal delays and others and the K Palaniswami government has no justification to continue in power and should resign immediately DMK leader MKStalin in a tweet said Not only delayed justice is denied When people are having faith on the judiciary for protecting democracy there should be clear and fast judgements VCK leader Thol Thirumavalan termed the judgment unexpectedThe final decision on the case should be given at the earliest Thirumavalavan added The case comes from the time when Panneerselvam had rebelled against the party led by jailed leader VK Sasikala Later he merged his group with the one led by Palaniswami who sidelined Sasikala and her nephew DinakaranA group of 19 lawmakers met then Governor CV Rao and gave a memorandum expressing loss of confidence in Palaniswami and requested him to appoint a new Chief Minister The Speaker then issued notice to the lawmakers asking them why they should not be disqualified under the antidefection law Subsequently one of them STK Jakkaiyan switched over to the Palaniswami side and the others were disqualifiedThe case filed by the disqualified legislators against the Speakers action is pending before the High Court since September 2017 The court had reserved the judgement on January 24 Hours before the judgment Tamil Nadu Advocate General Vijay Narayanan met Palaniswami Earlier in the day the disqualified lawmakers met Dinakaran and discussed the steps to be taken ahead In April in a different case the Madras High Court had said it could not interfere with the Speakers domainOn April 27 the court dismissed a petition filed by DMK Whip R Sakkarapani seeking disqualification of 11 AIADMK legislators including Deputy Chief Minister O Panneerselvam for voting against the government during a confidence motion moved by Palaniswami on February 18 last yearThe court said it had the power of judicial review of decisions taken but could not interfere in a matter where the Speaker had not taken a decision It also referred to a case pending in the Supreme Court on a similar issue arising from Andhra PradeshAlso Read DMK Boycotts CM Palaniswamis Reply To Debate On Grants For His DeptsCatch up on all the latest Crime National International and Hatke news here Also download the new midday Android and iOS apps to get latest updatesThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever