Click here to know more on the case
What is the issue?
- 18 MLAs in Tamil Nadu were disqualified by the Assembly Speaker earlier.
- A split verdict has been given, regarding the disqualifications, by a two-member Bench of the Madras HC.
What is the case on?
- The case relates to a memorandum given by Mr. Dhinakaran’s loyalists to the Governor earlier in 2017.
- They belong to the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, a split party of the ruling ADMK.
- The memorandum expressed lack of confidence in the Chief Minister.
- It requested the Governor to set in motion a “constitutional process” against him.
- Following thus, on party’s Chief Whip's complaint, the Speaker ruled that the MLAs had incurred disqualification.
- This was on the ground that their action amounted to voluntarily giving up party membership.
- It thus eventually invited provisions of the anti-defection law.
What is the rationale for upholding the disqualification?
- Both judges are cognisant of the limits of judicial review on the matter.
- But the Chief Justice Indira Banerjee upheld the earlier order of disqualification.
- She has declined to interfere on the matter.
- This was on the ground that it was proper to examine only the decision-making process, and not its merits.
- Mere criticism of the CM or withdrawal of support, by itself, would not attract disqualification.
- However, if the MLAs’ action results in the fall of their party’s government, it is “tantamount to implied relinquishment” of their membership.
- Going by this, there seems to be no perversity or mala fide in the Speaker’s action.
What is the rationale for striking down the disqualification?
- The other judge, Justice M. Sundar has noted that the Speaker’s order is invalid.
- He terms as mala fide the Speaker’s decision not to apply the disqualification rule.
- This is based on all the four grounds on which judicial review in such cases is permitted.
- These are perversity, mala fide, violation of natural justice and the constitutional mandate.
- The Speaker’s order was aimed at creating an “artificial majority”.
- The question of voluntarily giving up membership would not arise in this case.
- This is because the party itself was embroiled in a factional tussle before the Election Commission.
What are the implications?
- The matter will now be referred to a third judge.
- The option would be to choose between the limited view of the decision-making process or the other more expansive view.
- The issue leaves as many as 18 Assembly constituencies unrepresented.
- A unanimous judgment would have adversely impacted the government, regardless of the decision.
- The split judgment on the MLAs’ case gives a further lease of life to the TN Chief Minister.
- But it prolongs the political uncertainty in Tamil Nadu.
Source: The Hindu
