The Supreme Court today assigned the case relating to the disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to sidelined party leader T T V Dhinakaran, to Justice M Sathyanarayanan of the Madras High Court, following a split verdict on the issue by a division bench.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Sanjay Kishan Kaul refused to transfer the case from the Madras High Court and said that Justice Sathyanarayanan would hear and decide the pleas filed by these MLAs challenging their disqualification by the Tamil Nadu Assembly speaker.
The apex court's order came on petitions filed by some of the disqualified MLAs seeking transfer of their pleas challenging their disqualification from the Madras High Court to the top court.
Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal had on September 18 last year disqualified these 18 MLAs on the ground that they had tried to pull down AIADMK government in the state.
On June 14, a division bench of the Madras High Court had given a split verdict on petitions challenging the disqualification of these MLAs, a ruling that maintained status quo in the corridors of power in Tamil Nadu.
Also Read
The court had said that the senior-most judge after the high court's Chief Justice would hand-pick a third judge, who will hear the matter afresh.
Following this, Justice S Vimala of the high court was appointed as the third judge to hear the matter.
The petitioners had then approached the apex court seeking transfer of their pleas from the high court claiming that there was apprehension of "bias".
"We consider it appropriate to assign the case on difference of opinion to Justice M Sathyanarayanan. He will hear the matter and decide it," the apex court said.
During the arguments, the bench took exception to certain averments made against a high court judge after which senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, said they would withdraw these allegations.
"At the outset, we record our appreciation that all allegations made against judges have been withdrawn by the petitioner. They stand expunged, including on assignment of case (to Justice Vimala) by Justice H G Ramesh (the senior-most judge after the Chief Justice)," the bench noted in its order.
Singh told the bench that the high court had passed its verdict in the matter six months after reserving it in January this year.
To this, the court expressed reservations and said "the lawyers filed the petition and argued the case for four months. And then you think judges are like computers, you press one button and the order will come. Orders and judgments take deliberations and these cannot be passed in days".
The bench also observed that six months time was not taken by the high court to deliver a verdict in the matter and asked the petitioners to withdraw these averments, saying no aspersions should be cast on any judge.
Singh assured the apex court that they would withdraw all such statements.
The bench suggested that it would nominate the third judge who would hear and decide the case.
On June 14, a division bench of high court comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar had delivered divergent verdicts on whether the 18 MLAs deserved to be disqualified under the anti-defection law by the Speaker for approaching the Governor and seeking the removal of Chief Minister K Palaniswami.
In her 200-page order, the chief justice had upheld the Speaker's decision, saying "in my opinion, the view taken by the Speaker is a possible, if not plausible view, and I am unable to hold that the said decision is any way unreasonable, irrational or perverse."
Justice Sundar, in his 135-page order, had struck a dissenting note, insisting that Speaker P Dhanapal's order "deserved to be set aside on grounds of perversity, non-compliance with principles of natural justice, mala fides and violation of the constitutional mandate".
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
