An effort is on by the Opposition parties and fringe elements in Tamil Nadu to portray Chief Justice Indira Banerjee in poor light following Thursday’s split verdict in the case related to the disqualification of 18 AIADMK MlAs by P Dhanapal, Speaker of the legislative Assembly .
Chief Justice Banerjee had upheld the order issued by the Speaker on September 18, 2017 disqualifying the 18 MlAs while Justice M Sundar, her companion judge quashed the order.
The Speaker’s action was in response to a request by the Chief Whip S Rajendran who wrote to him that the action of the 18 MlAs meeting then Governor C Vidhyasagar Rao in August 2017 and informing him that they were withdrawing support to Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswamy tantamount to an act of defection and hence they should be disqualified from the House.
Following the split verdict, the plea would be heard by a third judge to be decided by Justice Huluwadi G Ramesh, the senior-most judge after the chief justice. This process may take two months. Meanwhile, the Division Bench also restrained the conduct of the by elections to the 18 constituencies represented by the disqualified MlAs.
But some of the Opposition leaders in Tamil Nadu are casting aspersions on the stance of the Chief Justice for upholding the Speaker’s order. “Chief Justice Indira Banerjee had quashed the order of the Speaker of the Puducherry legislative Assembly in the month of March. But I am surprised to see her upholding the ruling by Tamil Nadu Speaker. I don’t understand how there can be one law for Tamil Nadu’s Speaker and another law for Puducherry Speaker,” rued TTV Dhinakaran, leader of the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, while speaking to reporters after the verdict on Thursday.
Dhinakaran was the rallying point for the disqualified MlAs. His innuendoes were repeated by the left leaders. “It raises questions when the chief justice says that she cannot interfere in the Tamil Nadu Speaker’s decision”, said K Balakrishnan, CPI(M) state secretary.
But the Puducherry case stands in contrast to the Tamil Nadu issue. In Puducherry, the Speaker had refused to administer oath of office and secrecy to the three MlAs nominated by the Centre. A writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court with a plea to declare as unconstitutional and quash a gazette notification published by the Centre on July 4, 2017, nominating Bharatiya Janata Party Puducherry unit chief V. Saminathan, its treasurer K.G. Shankar, and educationist S. Selva Ganapathy to the Assembly.
Interestingly, it was the same Bench consisting of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar which had dismissed the petitions and ruled that Speaker V Vaithilingam was not right in refusing the nomination. “Our nomination was as per the provisions in the Constitution. The Speaker was bound to accept the nominations. But in Tamil Nadu, the issue was in connection with the anti-defection law,” said Saminathan.
G Satyamurty, veteran scribe and columnist , said that the opposition in Tamil Nadu are good in distorting facts to sit their convenience. “If you ask them what was the Puducherry verdict about, they would say they do not know. It is not fair to cast aspersions on anybody,” said Satyamurty.