DMK whip R. Sakkarapani on Monday approached the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker and the Assembly Secretary to initiate disqualification proceedings against Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and 10 other AIADMK MLAs, who voted against the motion of confidence moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami on February 18. Another legislator had defied the whip issued by the AIADMK and stayed away from the voting proceedings on that day.
In an urgent writ petition moved during the Dasara vacation, Mr. Sakkarapani contended that Mr. Panneerselvam and the MLAs who were with him then had voted against the whip issued by their party. This was a ground for disqualification under the Tamil Nadu Legislative (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules of 1986.
Instead of initiating action against those MLAs, the Speaker had, with a mala fide intent, disqualified 18 other AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran, who had done nothing against the party whip. They had only submitted letters to the Governor expressing no confidence in the Chief Minister, he said.
Mr. Panneerselvam, Mr. Pandiarajan and Messrs. V.C. Aarukutty, S.P. Shunmuganathan, K. Manickam, A.Manoharan, N. Manoranjitham, S.S. Saravanan, S. Semmalai, O.K. Chinnaraj and R.Nataraj had voted against their party whip when the motion of confidence was put to vote. MLA P.R.G. Arunkumar had abstained from voting without the permission of the party.
Quid pro quo
Pointing out that Mr. Pandiarajan himself had filed a case in the Supreme Court challenging the manner in which the no confidence motion was defeated in the Assembly through a voice vote instead of holding a secret ballot, Mr. Sakkrapani alleged that the case was withdrawn as a quid pro quo after the Chief Minister inducted him and Mr. Panneerselvam in the Cabinet. The petition, filed through senior counsel R. Shunmugasundaram, claimed that the act of the 12 MLAs defying their party’s whip had not been condoned by their party within 15 days of voting as required under the 1986 Rules. Therefore, they must be deemed to have been disqualified as on date.
Clarifying any possible doubts that may arise with respect to his locus standi to file the writ petition, Mr. Sakkarapani referred to a series of Supreme Court decisions on the issue and contended that any member of the House could raise the issue irrespective of the party to which they belong.
The petition is expected to be listed for hearing before Justice S. Vaidyanathan during the vacation court sitting on Wednesday, provided the judge is convinced about the urgency of the issue.