Verdict on TN MLAs Disqualification

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.

Source: The Hindu