The Tamil Nadu Assembly in session.
The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings initiated by the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P. Dhanapal for the disqualification of three MLAs of the ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam under the anti-defection law.
The story so far: On May 6, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings initiated by Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P. Dhanapal for the disqualification of three MLAs of the ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) — E. Rathinasabapathy (representing Aranthangi constituency), V.T. Kalaiselvan (Virudhachalam) and A. Prabhu (Kallakurichi) under the anti-defection law. Two of the MLAs had approached the Court. On May 10, Mr. Prabhu, who had separately approached the Supreme Court, too got a stay order from the Court.
How did it come about?
The judicial intervention followed a series of events. On April 26, Chief Government Whip S. Rajendran complained that the MLAs had associated themselves with T.T.V. Dhinakaran, general secretary of the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK). Three days later, the Speaker issued show-cause notices to them. The principal opposition party in the Assembly, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) proposed a no-confidence motion against Mr. Dhanapal.
The rebel MLAs made two arguments in the Supreme Court. One, they accused the Speaker of having “acted in a partisan and biased manner” Two, they contended that Mr. Dhanapal should not act on the disqualification matter while a motion of no-confidence against him was pending.
As on date, the three MLAs do not deny that their sympathies lie with Mr. Dhinakaran or, to be precise, with V.K. Sasikala, confidante of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and now serving a prison term in Bengaluru after being convicted in a disproportionate assets case. Mr. Rathinasabapathy and Mr. Kalaiselvan announced their support to Mr. Dhinakaran in August 2017 while Mr. Prabhu joined them six months later. But the three maintain they are not members of the AMMK. The AMMK, just a few days prior to the Government Whip’s complaint to the Speaker, applied to the Election Commission for registration as a political party.
Apparently, the AIADMK’s plan was to establish that by supporting Mr. Dhinakaran, the three MLAs had “voluntarily given up” membership of the party. It was the same ground on which 18 pro-Dhinakaran MLAs were disqualified in September 2017.
Why does it matter?
The show-cause notice was issued about 10 days after polling took place for 38 Lok Sabha constituencies and 18 Assembly seats, for which by-elections were held. Four more Assembly constituencies will also see by-polls on May 19. This means the Assembly will be at its full strength of 234 once the results are out. If all the 22 vacancies are filled, the ruling party has to show 118 members on its side.
At present, it has 114 MLAs including the Speaker. Had the court not stayed the disqualification proceedings, the three MLAs could have been disqualified, and the House’s strength brought down to 231. In that case, the AIADMK would need only 116 members, just two more than its present strength.
But, the ruling dispensation dismisses the argument. The Government Whip told reporters, after handing over his complaint to the Speaker, that time was required to collect material against the rebel legislators to substantiate his charge. Law Minister C.Ve. Shanmugam has said his party is confident of facing and winning a floor test “on any day”.
What are the rules on disqualification?
As per Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, a Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council can be disqualified on two grounds: if the member voluntarily gives up membership of the party on whose ticket he or she got elected; or, if the member votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction of such party. However, disqualification may be avoided if the party leadership condones the vote or abstention within 15 days. The procedure for disqualification is laid down in the Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986. Each State has similar rules.
What lies ahead?
After the Supreme Court’s notice is served on the Assembly Speaker and his office, the normal practice is that the Assembly Secretary will file a response.
The results of the by-elections to 22 Assembly constituencies will also have a bearing on what happens from now on. If the ruling AIADMK wins a comfortable number of seats, it won’t mind if the motion against the Speaker is taken up first. This will have the effect of rendering redundant one of the arguments of the rebel legislators: the Speaker facing a motion for his own removal should not adjudicate disqualification issues. There are at least two more MLAs against whom the party may initiate action for going against the AIADMK leadership.
If the DMK wins in all 22 seats, there can be a regime change, which may be followed by the election of a new Speaker. In that case, the disqualification proceedings may not be pursued at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment