The vacation bench directed the petitioners to the list the plea and fixed the matter for hearing on Wednesday. (Express photo)
The 18 disqualified MLAs of the AIADMK on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of their petition challenging their disqualification by the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker from Madras High Court. The apex court will hear the plea to transfer the case on Wednesday.
On Monday, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the disqualified legislators, submitted to the vacation bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Sanjay Kishan Kaul that it is a serious matter that requires urgent hearing, as the High Court gave a split verdict on June 14. The third judge, he submitted, is scheduled to hear the matter afresh.
In their plea, the disqualified MLAs also claimed that the split verdict of Madras HC will further delay holding of fresh elections to the Assembly.
Singh also alleged that “through WhatsApp messages, (a) few persons already knew about the third judge who will be hearing the matter even before his name was cleared”.
The petitioner have apprehended reservation about nomination of Justice S Vimala, who will now hear the matter, claiming that the judge’s daughter-in-law has been appointed as a government pleader in Madras HC.
The vacation bench directed the petitioners to the list the plea and fixed the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
The plea comes in connection with the order passed by the Madras High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, with the CJ upholding the disqualification order passed by Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal on September 18, 2017. Justice Sundar quashed the Speaker’s order.
The HC had ruled that the senior-most judge after High Court Chief Justice Banerjee will now handpick a third judge to hear the matter afresh. Justice Banerjee had said that status quo will continue until the third judge delivers the verdict on the petitions.
Speaker P Dhanapal had disqualified the 18 MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined party leader T T V Dhinakaran on the ground that they had tried to pull down the party’s government in the state. In her 200-page order, the Chief Justice upheld the Speaker’s decision, observing, “In my opinion, the view taken by the Speaker is a possible, if not plausible view, and I am unable to hold that the said decision is (in) any way unreasonable, irrational or perverse.”
In his 135-page order, Justice Sundar observed that Dhanapal’s order “deserved to be set aside on grounds of perversity, non-compliance with principles of natural justice, mala fides and violation of the constitutional mandate”.