Opinion The unlevel field
With the government precariously poised, disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs by Tamil Nadu Speaker raises questions
File
The decision of the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, P. Dhanapal, to disqualify 18 “rebel” AIADMK MLAs on Monday raises serious questions of propriety. It comes at a precarious moment — the Madras High Court is set to decide if Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswamy should take a floor test to prove his majority in the assembly later this week. The demand for a floor test was triggered after these MLAs, who support Sasikala Natarajan and T.T.V. Dinakaran, claimed that they had lost faith in Palaniswamy’s leadership. Their removal from the assembly renders the floor test a formality, if the court orders it: After the expulsions, Palaniswamy needs 107 MLAs to prove his majority while he commands the loyalty of 112.
The speaker’s office has disqualified the legislators under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986. The official faction of the AIADMK had complained to the speaker last month that the rebel MLAs were indulging in “anti-party activities”. Does this complaint, however, call for their expulsion from the assembly? There is no instance yet of a violation of the whip.
The anti-party activities cited by the AIADMK chief whip are apparently limited to the dissidents making a submission to the governor that they are withdrawing support to Palaniswamy as chief minister and speaking to the media.
Clearly, the complaint by the official faction of the AIADMK to the speaker was aimed at preempting the rebels from voting against the government in the event of a no-confidence motion. Ironically, the official faction of the AIADMK had filed a similar complaint against former chief minister O.
Panneerselvam and the MLAs in his camp when he rebelled against the party leadership, which then included the current rebels, after his removal from the CM’s post some months ago. The speaker did not act on it since the then dissidents had not voted against the party in the House on any matter.
The then dissidents have since returned to the official faction and the churn in the party has produced another set of rebels. The speaker could have followed his own precedent and refrained from intervening in what has so far remained an inner-party feud. In a similar case in 2011, the Supreme Court had set aside the Karnataka Assembly Speaker’s decision to disqualify 16 MLAs, who had withdrawn their support to the government, ahead of a no-confidence motion.
It is, indeed, the prerogative of the speaker to decide on the status of legislators. However, the decision must — and must be seen to — uphold constitutional values and principles of natural justice.
Share
