CHENNAI: Political uncertainty in Tamil Nadu is bound to continue for some more time as the first bench of the Madras prime court docket on Thursday delivered a cut up verdict in the '18 MLAs disqualification case'.
While Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the meeting speaker's September 18, 2017 order stripping 18 riot AIADMK legislators in their posts, pronouncing scope of judicial assessment was once restricted, her companion judge Justice M Sundar quashed the speaker's resolution, pronouncing the MLAs' act of alleged defection was once no longer 'clear, categoric and unambiguous." They had been disqualified on September 18, 2017 beneath anti-defection regulations for having submitted a memorandum to the Tamil Nadu governor chickening out their beef up to leader minister Edappadi Ok Palaniswami. On September 20, the court docket asked the election fee not to deal with them as vacancies and hang byelections. The first bench reserved its order on January 23.
On Thursday, in a development that would lengthen the uncertainty at the status of the MLAs, and as a result the steadiness of the federal government, the judges failed to reach a consensus over the issue. They referred the topic to the next senior-most judge of the court docket so that you could be posted prior to a third judge for hearing. The bench also made it clear that the bar on maintaining bypoll to 18 seats would continue. In her order, Chief Justice Banerjee said that even though orders of the speaker beneath the Tenth Schedule had been amenable to judicial assessment, the scope of such assessment is limited to violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with regulations of natural justice and perversity.
‘Sauce for goose is sauce for gander too’
A trifling irregularity in procedure can haven't any bearing at the resolution,” the judge added.
However, Justice Sundar set aside the order pronouncing it was once hit by way of all 4 grounds of judicial assessment -- perversity, non-compliance with ideas of natural justice, mala fides and violation of constitutional mandate.”
AIADMK legislator S T Ok Jakkaiyan was once some other flashpoint. Though he was once some of the 19 MLAs who submitted the damning memorandum to the governor, was once issued a showcause realize and he submitted replies too, he was once no longer disqualified as he had crossed over to the ruling facet.
“It is not vital to go into into the question of whether or not the disqualification has rightly or wrongly been brushed aside towards Jakkaiyan. Suffice it to note that there can also be no equality to a flawed and two wrongs don't make a proper,” said Chief Justice Banerjee. But Justice Sundar said: “The court docket is unable to comb aside the grievance that other yardsticks have been applied to them on one hand and S T Ok Jakkaiyan alternatively in the same impugned order, relying on political exigencies.” When it's the stated place of the speaker that the Tenth Schedule is attracted the instant the petitioners gave illustration to the governor, Jakkaiyan also must stand disqualified. “After all, the age-old adage is ‘what's sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander too', he said.
While the Chief Justice said the speaker’s order was once a “possible, if no longer believable” view that would no longer be referred to as unreasonable, irrational or perverse, Justice Sundar said: “It can’t be said that there is clear, categoric, unambiguous solution towards the writ petitioners to the question as to whether they voluntarily gave up their club the birthday party on August 22, 2017 and August 24, 2017 when AIADMK political birthday party itself didn't exist as an entity in that very same form owing to ECI being seized of the topic.”
While Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the meeting speaker's September 18, 2017 order stripping 18 riot AIADMK legislators in their posts, pronouncing scope of judicial assessment was once restricted, her companion judge Justice M Sundar quashed the speaker's resolution, pronouncing the MLAs' act of alleged defection was once no longer 'clear, categoric and unambiguous." They had been disqualified on September 18, 2017 beneath anti-defection regulations for having submitted a memorandum to the Tamil Nadu governor chickening out their beef up to leader minister Edappadi Ok Palaniswami. On September 20, the court docket asked the election fee not to deal with them as vacancies and hang byelections. The first bench reserved its order on January 23.
On Thursday, in a development that would lengthen the uncertainty at the status of the MLAs, and as a result the steadiness of the federal government, the judges failed to reach a consensus over the issue. They referred the topic to the next senior-most judge of the court docket so that you could be posted prior to a third judge for hearing. The bench also made it clear that the bar on maintaining bypoll to 18 seats would continue. In her order, Chief Justice Banerjee said that even though orders of the speaker beneath the Tenth Schedule had been amenable to judicial assessment, the scope of such assessment is limited to violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with regulations of natural justice and perversity.
‘Sauce for goose is sauce for gander too’
A trifling irregularity in procedure can haven't any bearing at the resolution,” the judge added.
However, Justice Sundar set aside the order pronouncing it was once hit by way of all 4 grounds of judicial assessment -- perversity, non-compliance with ideas of natural justice, mala fides and violation of constitutional mandate.”
AIADMK legislator S T Ok Jakkaiyan was once some other flashpoint. Though he was once some of the 19 MLAs who submitted the damning memorandum to the governor, was once issued a showcause realize and he submitted replies too, he was once no longer disqualified as he had crossed over to the ruling facet.
“It is not vital to go into into the question of whether or not the disqualification has rightly or wrongly been brushed aside towards Jakkaiyan. Suffice it to note that there can also be no equality to a flawed and two wrongs don't make a proper,” said Chief Justice Banerjee. But Justice Sundar said: “The court docket is unable to comb aside the grievance that other yardsticks have been applied to them on one hand and S T Ok Jakkaiyan alternatively in the same impugned order, relying on political exigencies.” When it's the stated place of the speaker that the Tenth Schedule is attracted the instant the petitioners gave illustration to the governor, Jakkaiyan also must stand disqualified. “After all, the age-old adage is ‘what's sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander too', he said.
While the Chief Justice said the speaker’s order was once a “possible, if no longer believable” view that would no longer be referred to as unreasonable, irrational or perverse, Justice Sundar said: “It can’t be said that there is clear, categoric, unambiguous solution towards the writ petitioners to the question as to whether they voluntarily gave up their club the birthday party on August 22, 2017 and August 24, 2017 when AIADMK political birthday party itself didn't exist as an entity in that very same form owing to ECI being seized of the topic.”
MLAs case: Two judgments, no verdict
![MLAs case: Two judgments, no verdict]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
June 15, 2018
Rating:
