Intention isn’t to topple AIADMK government: Rebel MLAs
By Siva Sekaran | Express News Service | Published: 05th October 2017 02:39 AM |
Last Updated: 05th October 2017 08:29 AM | A+A A- |

Senior advocate Aryama Sundaram (R), who appeared on behalf of Speaker P Dhanapal in the Madras HC
CHENNAI: Drawing a careful nuance between toppling the government and wanting to remove a ‘corrupt’ chief minister from the post, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing before the High Court of Madras on behalf of the 18 rebel MLAs of T T V Dhinakaran faction who have been disqualified, compared their fate with that of the group of 11 original rebels whose leader, O Panneerselvam, has been made the deputy chief minister despite voting against the party during trust vote.
“Our intention is not to topple the ruling AIADMK government, but only to remove corrupt Chief Minister Edappadi K Palanisamy from the post,” Singhvi told the court on Wednesday, as hearing resumed over the batch of petitions filed by the 18 MLAs who owe allegiance to Dhinakaran. No notice or opportunity was given to his clients before issuing the orders, which were bereft of signatures, names and other necessary particulars, Singhvi told Justice K Ravichandrabaabu, arguing that the provisions of Anti-Defection Law were not applicable in this instance.
Due to this “illegal action” of Speaker P Dhanapal, the 18 MLAs had lost their identity as AIADMK MLAs. On the other hand, a group of 11 MLAs, including Panneerselvam, presently the deputy chief minister, had voted against the present Chief Minister, but not a single show cause notice was issued to them till date.
The Speaker, who has to maintain neutrality, had shown partiality, Singhvi contended, and claimed that still his clients are members of the AIADMK. The order of the Speaker was against natural justice and all fairness and hence was discriminatory, Singhvi contended. I The arguments will continue on October 9. Earlier, the court witnessed a flutter as senior counsel representing the 18 MLAs, including P Vetrivel representing Perambur, and the DMK and its party whip R Sakkarapani vyed with each other, wanting their case to be heard first. However, the judge chose to hear the arguments of counsel for the 18 disqualified MLAs, as the other petitions were the outflow of the same.