HC defers AIADMK disqualification case until Oct 9

CHENNAI: The uncertainty over the stability of the Edapaddi Palanisami government could be answered on Monday when the Madras high court takes up the AIADMK MLAs petition challenging their disqualification.

Posting the matter for Monday, Justice K Ravichandra Babu asked all the sides to be present and not seek any adjournments for reasons sparking speculation that a final order could be pronounced in the case.

The judge also ruled that the previous order banning the floor test and conduct of fresh elections in 18 vacancies notified by speaker to the Election Commission will continue to be in force until the case is disposed of.

The court took up the 18 AIADMK MLAs petition at 11.35 am and arguments lasted till 3.30 pm. After hearing arguments of both the sides, Justice Babu adjourned the proceedings for Monday.

Congress leader and Supreme Court advocate Abhishesk Manusinghvi, representing the TTV camp MLAs, submitted to the court that the speaker had acted in a partisan manner in rushing to take action against them, and that too without any valid reason.

“We had only gone to the governor seeking a change of the chief minister and had never voted against the government on the floor of the house,” he submitted to the court.

We had only gone to the governor seeking a change of the chief minister and had never voted against the govt on the floor of the house ABHISHESK MANUSINGHVI, Congress leader

Clearly, the speaker acted against the Constitution in holding the MLAs guilty under the anti-defection law.

Manusinghvi further submitted that “we had no intention to pull down the government and neither did we quit the AIADMK. We were against the chief minister only. The lawyer representing the rebel MLAs said they were not even served disqualification orders and that they came to know of it through television channels.

Senior Supreme Court advocate Aryaman Sundaram said that “there has been no failure of natural justice as was being alleged.

The speaker had given three notices to the MLAs to explain their actions, but they did not respond.