CHENNAI: Political uncertainty in Tamil Nadu is certain to proceed for some more time as the primary bench of the Madras top court on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the '18 MLAs disqualification case'.
While Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the meeting speaker's September 18, 2017 order stripping 18 rebellion AIADMK legislators in their posts, pronouncing scope of judicial review was restricted, her better half judge Justice M Sundar quashed the speaker's determination, pronouncing the MLAs' act of alleged defection was not 'transparent, categoric and unambiguous." They had been disqualified on September 18, 2017 beneath anti-defection rules for having submitted a memorandum to the Tamil Nadu governor taking flight their enhance to chief minister Edappadi Ok Palaniswami. On September 20, the court requested the election fee not to treat them as vacancies and grasp byelections. The first bench reserved its order on January 23.
On Thursday, in a construction that may extend the uncertainty at the status of the MLAs, and because of this the steadiness of the government, the judges failed to achieve a consensus over the problem. They referred the topic to the following senior-most judge of the court so as to be posted prior to a third judge for hearing. The bench additionally made it transparent that the bar on conserving bypoll to 18 seats would proceed. In her order, Chief Justice Banerjee stated that although orders of the speaker beneath the Tenth Schedule had been amenable to judicial review, the scope of such review is proscribed to violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules 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 determination,” the judge added.
However, Justice Sundar put aside the order pronouncing it was hit via all four grounds of judicial review -- perversity, non-compliance with ideas of natural justice, mala fides and violation of constitutional mandate.”
AIADMK legislator S T Ok Jakkaiyan was another flashpoint. Though he was among the 19 MLAs who submitted the damning memorandum to the governor, was issued a showcause notice and he submitted replies too, he was not disqualified as he had crossed over to the ruling facet.
“It is not vital to enter into the query of whether or not the disqualification has rightly or wrongly been pushed aside in opposition to Jakkaiyan. Suffice it to note that there can also be no equality to a improper and two wrongs do not make a right,” stated Chief Justice Banerjee. But Justice Sundar stated: “The court is not able to sweep apart the complaint that different yardsticks were applied to them on one hand and S T Ok Jakkaiyan then again in the similar impugned order, relying on political exigencies.” When it's the mentioned position of the speaker that the Tenth Schedule is attracted the moment the petitioners gave illustration to the governor, Jakkaiyan additionally should stand disqualified. “After all, the age-old adage is ‘what is sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander too', he stated.
While the Chief Justice stated the speaker’s order was a “conceivable, if not plausible” view that would not be known as unreasonable, irrational or perverse, Justice Sundar stated: “It can’t be stated that there is transparent, categoric, unambiguous resolution in opposition to the writ petitioners to the query as to whether they voluntarily gave up their club the birthday celebration on August 22, 2017 and August 24, 2017 when AIADMK political birthday celebration itself did not exist as an entity in that 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 rebellion AIADMK legislators in their posts, pronouncing scope of judicial review was restricted, her better half judge Justice M Sundar quashed the speaker's determination, pronouncing the MLAs' act of alleged defection was not 'transparent, categoric and unambiguous." They had been disqualified on September 18, 2017 beneath anti-defection rules for having submitted a memorandum to the Tamil Nadu governor taking flight their enhance to chief minister Edappadi Ok Palaniswami. On September 20, the court requested the election fee not to treat them as vacancies and grasp byelections. The first bench reserved its order on January 23.
On Thursday, in a construction that may extend the uncertainty at the status of the MLAs, and because of this the steadiness of the government, the judges failed to achieve a consensus over the problem. They referred the topic to the following senior-most judge of the court so as to be posted prior to a third judge for hearing. The bench additionally made it transparent that the bar on conserving bypoll to 18 seats would proceed. In her order, Chief Justice Banerjee stated that although orders of the speaker beneath the Tenth Schedule had been amenable to judicial review, the scope of such review is proscribed to violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules 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 determination,” the judge added.
However, Justice Sundar put aside the order pronouncing it was hit via all four grounds of judicial review -- perversity, non-compliance with ideas of natural justice, mala fides and violation of constitutional mandate.”
AIADMK legislator S T Ok Jakkaiyan was another flashpoint. Though he was among the 19 MLAs who submitted the damning memorandum to the governor, was issued a showcause notice and he submitted replies too, he was not disqualified as he had crossed over to the ruling facet.
“It is not vital to enter into the query of whether or not the disqualification has rightly or wrongly been pushed aside in opposition to Jakkaiyan. Suffice it to note that there can also be no equality to a improper and two wrongs do not make a right,” stated Chief Justice Banerjee. But Justice Sundar stated: “The court is not able to sweep apart the complaint that different yardsticks were applied to them on one hand and S T Ok Jakkaiyan then again in the similar impugned order, relying on political exigencies.” When it's the mentioned position of the speaker that the Tenth Schedule is attracted the moment the petitioners gave illustration to the governor, Jakkaiyan additionally should stand disqualified. “After all, the age-old adage is ‘what is sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander too', he stated.
While the Chief Justice stated the speaker’s order was a “conceivable, if not plausible” view that would not be known as unreasonable, irrational or perverse, Justice Sundar stated: “It can’t be stated that there is transparent, categoric, unambiguous resolution in opposition to the writ petitioners to the query as to whether they voluntarily gave up their club the birthday celebration on August 22, 2017 and August 24, 2017 when AIADMK political birthday celebration itself did not exist as an entity in that same form owing to ECI being seized of the topic.”
Two judgments, no verdict: HC bench split over MLAs case
![Two judgments, no verdict: HC bench split over MLAs case]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
June 15, 2018
Rating:
