INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA INTHEMATTEROF: V.T.KALAISELVAN …images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2019/05/VT-Kalaiselvan-… · V.T.KALAISELVAN .…PETITIONER VERSUS MR.S.DHANAPAL,SPEAKER&ORS

INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA

CIVILORIGINALJURISDICTION

WRITPETITION(CIVIL)NO. OF2019

[UnderArticle32ofConstitutionofIndia]

INTHEMATTEROF:

V.T.KALAISELVAN .…PETITIONER

VERSUS

MR.S.DHANAPAL,SPEAKER&ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

I.A.No. of2019

AnApplicationforStay

PAPERBOOK

[FORINDEXPLEASESEEINSIDE]

ADVOCATEFORTHEPETITIONER:MR.AMITANANDTIWARI

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

INDEX

SL.No.

Particulars ofDocuments

Page No.of part towhichitbelongs

Remarks

PartI

(Contentsof PaperBook)

PartII

(Contents of filealone)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1. ListingProforma A-A1 A-A1

2. CoverPage ofPaper

Book

A-2

3. DefectList A-3

4. NoteSheet NSIto…

5. Synopsis & List ofDates

6. Writ Petition with

affidavit.

7. ANNEXUREP/1

Atruecopyofpetition

dated 26.04.2019 filed

byRespondentno3

8. ANNEXUREP/2

A true copyofnotice

D.O Letter no

5130/2019-1,TNLAS(B

-I) dated 29.04.2019

issuedtothePetitioner

9. FilingMemo

10. Vakalatnama


SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner,who belongs to AllIndia Anna Dravida

MunetraKazagam (AIADMK),isamemberofLegislativeAssembly

Tamil Nadu representing Vridhachalam constituency, is

constrainedtomovethepresentpetitionunderArticle32ofthe

ConstitutionofIndiaforissuanceofanappropriatewritinthe

natureofProhibitionagainsttheHon’bleSpeaker(theRespondent

no1)ofLegislativeAssembly-forrestrainingtheSpeakertoact

withoutjurisdictionandtoadjudicatethedisqualificationpetition

movedagainstthepetitioner,duringthependencyofamotionfor

no-confidenceunderArticle179(c)oftheConstitutionagainsthim

incontraventionoflaw laiddownbyaConstitutionBenchofthis

Hon’bleCourtinthecaseofNabam Rebiavs.DeputySpeaker,

ArunachalPradeshLegislativeAssembly&Ors.(2016)8SCC1.

InNabam Rebiacase(Supra)ithasbeenheldbythisHon’ble

Courtthatitwould be constitutionally impermissible forthe

Speakertoadjudicateadisputeofdisqualificationpetitionunder

10thScheduledoftheConstitutionwhileanoticeofresolutionfor

hisownremovalfrom theofficeofSpeaker,ispending.Forready

referencepara194ofthejudgmentisquotedbelow:-

“194.Forthereasonsrecordedhereinabove,weherebyhold,

thatitwouldbeconstitutionallyimpermissibleforaSpeaker

toadjudicateupondisqualificationpetitionsundertheTenth


Schedule,whileanoticeofresolutionforhisownremoval

from theofficeofSpeaker,ispending.”

ThesaidlawhasbeenlaiddownbytheHon’bleCourtonthe

reasoning,therelevantportionsoftheJudgmentareextractedhere

forreadyreference:

“189.WhenthepositionofaSpeakerisunderchallenge,

throughanoticeofresolutionforhisremoval,itwould“seem”

justandappropriate,thattheSpeakerfirstdemonstrateshis

righttocontinueassuch,bywinningsupportofthemajority

in the State Legislature.The action ofthe Speakerin

continuing,withoneormoredisqualificationpetitionsunder

theTenthSchedule,whilstanoticeofresolutionforhisown

removal,from the office ofSpeakeris pending,would

“appear”tobeunfair.IfaSpeakertrulyandrightfullyenjoys

supportofthemajorityoftheMLAs,therewould beno

difficultywhatsoever,todemonstratetheconfidencewhich

themembersoftheStateLegislature,reposeinhim.The

office ofSpeaker,with which the Constitution vests the

authoritytodealwithdisqualificationpetitionsagainstMLAs,

mustsurelybeaSpeakerwho enjoysconfidenceofthe

Assembly.Afterall,disposalofthemotionUnderArticle

179(c),wouldtakenotimeatall….”

Thatthis Hon’ble Courtwas pleased to give the above

interpretationafterascertainingthedesiredintentoftheframersof

theConstitution,emergingfrom theConstituentAssemblydebates,


withreferencetoArticle179(c).TheCourtinpara174ofNabam

Rebia(supra)foundthat:

“190.….InthedraftConstitution,thepresentArticle179was

numberedasdraftArticle158.Oneoftheissuesdebated,

withreferencetodraftArticle158(c)was,withreferenceto

thewords"allthethenmembersoftheAssembly",used

therein.Theabovewordswereusedtodefine,thosewho

would participate in the motion,forthe removalofthe

Speaker.Needlessto mention,thatthesaid wordswere

retained in the finaldraft,in Article 179(c).One ofthe

members of the Constituent Assembly had suggested

substitutionoftheabovewords,bythewords,"themembers

oftheAssemblypresentandvoting"….

ThattheConstituentAssemblychosetoretainthewords,

"allthethenmembersoftheAssembly.",anddeclinedto

substitute them with the words,"the members ofthe

Assemblypresentandvoting".Weareoftheview,thatthe

acceptanceofonesetofwords,andtherejectionofthe

suggested substitution, would effectively render a

constitutionalanswertotheissueinhand.”

“193.…… Wearethereforeoftheview,thatconstitutional

purposeandconstitutionalharmonywouldbemaintained

andpreserved,ifaSpeakerrefrainsfrom adjudicationofa

petitionfordisqualificationundertheTenthSchedule,whilst

hisownposition,asSpeaker,isunderchallenge.Thiswould

also,allowthetwoprovisions(Article179(c),andtheTenth


Schedule)tooperateintheirindividualconstitutionalspace,

withoutencroachingontheother.”

Itissubmittedthattheactionsoftherespondentno1inthe

last2yearsspeaksvolumesofhispartisanandbiasedconduct

andhasreasonableapprehensionthatRespondentno1wouldnot

befollowingthedictum oflaw laiddownandwouldactwithout

jurisdictiontoadjudicateanddecidethedisqualificationpetition.

ForthisreasonthePetitionerisconstrainedtofilethisPetitionto

protecthimselffrom becoming victim atthe hands ofthe

Respondentandpreventinghim from actingunlawfully.

ThePetitionerismovingthepresentpetitionunderArticle32

forthereason thataction oftheRespondentno 1 iswithout

jurisdiction,arbitraryandactuatedwithmalice.TheactionofR-1is

violativeoffundamentalrightofthepetitionerunderArticle14and

19(1)(a)asitislikelytohampertherightoffreespeechand

expression ofthe petitioner.Further,bywayofthis writthe

petitionerisseekingenforcementoffundamentalconstitutional

dutycastedupontherespondentno1.

AsdetailedbelowintheListofdatesandeventstheSpeaker

hasbeenactinginpartisanandbiasedmannercontrarytothehigh

positionheldbyhim,whichenjoinshim toactabovepartyline.The

Speakerhasconductedhimself,forlast2years,contrarytothe

provisionsoftheConstitutionaswellasthejudgmentofthis

Hon’ble Court. This may become one more instance of

unconstitutionalactoftheSpeakerinthecontextof10thSchedule,

incaseheisnotrestrained.


InthefirstinstancetheSpeakercontrarytothejudgmentof

this Hon’ble Courtin Rajendra Singh Rana vs.SwamiPrasad

Maurya 2007 (4)SCC 270decided notto issue notice on a

disqualificationpetitionfiledagainst11MLA’sforvotingcontrary

todirection despitetherebeingaclearmandatebythisHon’ble

Courtthatinallsuchpetitionnoticehastobeissued.Itispertinent

to note thatthe matterin relation to this dispute is pending

adjudicationbeforethisHon’bleCourt.

ThattheSpeakeragainactedinabiasedpartisanmanner

whentheSpeakerdisqualified18MLAsofAIADMKongroundsof

antipartyactivities,whenalltheyhaddonewastowritealetterto

theGovernorcomplainingagainsttheworkingoftheCM,inline

with the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in

Balachandra L. Jarikolhi vs. B.S.Yeddiyurappa2011(7)SCC.Itis

submittedthatinthiscaseSpeakeractedhastilyanddisqualified

them.

Itissubmittedthatnow,justwhentheelectionresultofthe

byelectionto22seatsareduetobeannouncedon23rdMay2019,

theactiontakenbySpeakertoinitiatedisqualificationproceedings

againstthe presentPetitioner,smacksofbiased and partisan

attitude.

ThatconsideringthepastconductoftheSpeakerinnot

followingconstitutionallaw,thePetitionerapprehendsthatthe

Speakermaypassanorderonthedisqualificationpetitionagainst

the presentPetitioner,despite having no jurisdiction due to

pendencyofresolutionforhisownremoval.


HencethepresentWritPetition.

LISTOFDATESANDEVENTS

1. 05.12.201

6

SelviJ.Jayalalitha,FormerChiefMinisterofTamil

Nadu,andleaderofAIADMK,diedofprolonged

illness.

2. 06.12.201

6

ThiruO.PaneerSelvam (hereinafterreferredtoas

“OPS”)waselectedastheleaderofAIADMKin

TamilNaduLegislativeassemblyandwassworn

inasChiefMinisterofTamilNadu.

3. 05.02.201

7

OPSresignedfrom thepostofChiefMinister.

4. 10.02.201

7

OPSwasremovedfrom membershipoftheParty,

duetohisresortingtoAntipartyactivities.

5. 14.02.201

7

EdapaddiPalanisamy(hereinafterreferredtoas

“EPS”)waselectedastheleaderofLegislature

PartyofAIADMK.

6. 16.02.201

7

EPS was sworn in as ChiefMinisterofTamil

Nadu.

7. 18.02.201

7

TrustvotewasconductedwhereinOPSand10

otherMLA’svoted againstthewhip issued by

Chief Govt. whip. 122 MLAs including the

petitionervotedinfavouroftrustvote.

8. 16.03.2017

ThedisgruntlegroupofMLA’swhovotedagainst

the confidence motion including OPS filed a

symboldisputeclaimingsplitinAIADMKParty.

9. 20.03.201 SomeoftheMLAsofAIADMKi.e.P.Vetrivel,N.G.


7 Parthiban,ThangaTamilselvanandR.Rengasamy

filed individual petitions before the Hon’ble

Speaker/RespondentNo.1 againstOPS and 10

otherMLA’sseekingdisqualificationunderPara2

(1)(b)oftheRules,1986forvotingcontrarytothe

whipissued.

Note:Noactionhasbeentakenbythespeaker,till

date.Evennoticeshavenotbeenissued.

10.22.03.2017

Anoverwhelmingmajorityof122MLA’sand37

MP’ssupportedthegroupledbyV.K.Sasikala

andTTVDhinakaranwhereinthePetitionerwas

alsooneofthesupporters.Itispertinenttonote

that even EPS supported their leadership.

However,ECIpassedaninterim orderandgave2

separate name AIADMK (Amma)and AIADMK

(Puratchi Thalaivi Amma) to the respective

groupsledbyVKSasikalaandTTV Dhinakaran

andthegroupledbyOPS.

11. Juneto

August

2017

Some MLA’s started protesting against the

functioningoftheChiefMinister.OPSandEPS

cametogetherandOPSwasmadeDyCM.

12.22.8.2017 19MLA’swroteindividualletterstotheGovernor

wherein allegation againstCM asto abuse of

power,favouritism,corruptionandnepotism were

madeandmakingOPSasDy.CM eventhoughhe

publically criticised the govt. In the letter


categoricalstatementsweremadethattheyhave

–(i)lostconfidenceinCM andwanttowithdraw

support to CM (ii) they are not giving up

MembershipofthepartyAIADMK;(iii)requesting

Hon’bleGovernorto institutetheConstitutional

Processunderthecircumstances.

13.24.08.201

7

A petition for disqualification was filed by

Respondentno.2(ChiefGovt.Whip)againstthe

18MLAs&STKJakkaiyanonthegroundthatthey

havevoluntarilygivenupthemembershipofthe

AIADMKparty.

Thespeakerissuednoticetheverysameday.

14.26.08.201

7

Theleaderofopposition ofthestatemetthe

Governor.

15.28.08.201

7

TheSpeakerissuedprivilegenoticeto21DMK

MLAsincludingtheleaderofopposition.

NOTE:-Thisnoticewasstayed bytheHon’ble

HighCourtvideorderdated7.9.2017.

16.18.09.201

7

W.P.No.24708of2017titledM.K.Stalinv.State

ofTamilNadu&Ors.wasfiledbytheleaderofthe

Opposition of the Tamil Nadu Legislative

Assemblyforissuing mandamus directing the

respondentsthereinviz.,theChiefSecretary,the

SpeakeroftheTamilNaduLegislativeAssembly,

theSecretary,Government’sSecretariatandthe

ChiefMinister,GovernmentofTamilNadutohold


trustvoteintheTamilNaduLegislativeAssembly

forthwithunderthesupervisionofanindependent

observerappointedbytheHon’bleHighCourt.

17.18.09.201

7

Disallowing requestfor adjournment,Speaker

issued order qua 18 MLA’s and dismissed

disqualificationquaoneMLAashehadtenderan

apology.

Note:ThereisnoprovisionundertheConstitution

grantingpowertotheSpeakertocondonetheact

ofdisqualification.

18. 25.09.201

7

WritPetitionNos.26017,27853to27856of2017

(11MLAdisqualification)werefiledseekingfora

mandamusdirectingthefirstrespondentviz.,the

SpeakeroftheTamilNaduLegislativeAssembly

to considerand pass orders forthwith on the

petitiondated20.03.2017wasfiledseekingfor

disqualificationofalltheconcernedrespondents

intherespectivewritpetitionsunderPara2(1)(b)

oftheXScheduleoftheConstitutionofIndiaread

withRule6oftheMembersoftheTamilNadu

LegislativeAssembly(DisqualificationofGround

ofDefectionRules,1986)

19. 23.11.2017

SymboldisputewasdecidedbyECIanditwas

held thatgroup led by EPS and OPS is the

AIADMK.

20. 29.11.201 Orderpassed by ECIwas challenged by V.K.


7 SasikalaandTTVDhinakaranviderespectivewrit

petitionWP(C)No.10725of2017andWP(C)

No.10728of2017filedbeforetheHon’bleHigh

CourtofDelhi.

21. 27.04.201

8

TheHon’bleHighCourtpassedfinalorderand

JudgmentinWPNos.26017,27853to27856of

2017(11MLA disqualification)whereinthewrit

petitionsweredismissedonthegroundthatthe

issueispendingbeforethisHon’bleCourt.

22.14.06.201

8

TheHon’bleHighCourtpassedfinalorderand

Judgmentin(18MLAsdisqualification)wherea

splitverdictwaspronouncedbytheHon’bleChief

Justice whereas Hon’ble Chief Justice was

pleasedtodismisstheWritPetitionsHon’bleMr.

JusticeM.Sundarwaspleasedtoallowthesame,

constraining Hon’bleChiefJusticeto referthe

mattertoa3rdHon’bleJudge.

23.09.07.201

8

Thejudgmentdated27.04.2018passedbythe

Hon’bleHighCourtinWritPetitionNo.27583,

27584,27585&27586of2017(pertainingto11

MLAs)waschallengedbeforetheSupremeCourt

inCivilAppealNo.5156of2018,5866of2018

and5862-5864of2018 andthisHon’bleCourt

waspleasedtoissuenoticetotherespondents.

24.25.10.201

8

TheHon’blethirdjudgepasseditsfinaljudgment

and orderdismissing the WritPetitions Nos.


25260to25267of2017and25393to25402of

2017filedfordisqualification18MLA’s.

Note:Theverdictinthe18MLAscasenowstands

2:1.

25.07.02.2019

OrderwaspassedbythisHon’bleCourtinM.A.

No.31of2019inSLP(C)7258of2018holding

thatthe group led by V.K.Sasikala and TTV

Dhinakaranisentitledforacommonsymbol.

26.28.02.2019

OrderwaspassedbytheHon’bleHighCourtof

DelhidismissingthewritpetitionsfiledbyV.K.

SasikalaandTTVDhinakarantherebyconfirming

thefinalorderdated23.11.2017passedbythe

ECI.

27.05.03.2019

OrderpassedbytheHighCourtofDelhiinWP(C)

No.10725of2017andWP(C)No.10728of2017

was challenged by V.K. Sasikala and TTV

DhinakaranvideSLPbeforethisHon’bleCourt.

28.26.03.2019

OrderwaspassedbythisHon’bleCourtinCivil

AppealNo.3205 of2019 allotting a common

symboltothecandidatesledbyTTVDhinakaran

group.

29.18.04.201

9

By-Elections were held on the 18 Legislative

assemblyseats,vacatedduetodisqualification

orderpassedbytheRespondentno1.


30.24.04.201

9

AreviewpetitionbearingDiaryno.15092of2019

wasfiledbyMrsVKSasikalaseekingreview of

theorderofthisHon’bleCourtdated26.03.2019

dismissingthespecialleavepetitionchallenging

thefindingthatEPSandOPSaretherealparty.

31.26.04.201

9

ChiefWhip ofAIADMK namely S.Rajendran,

RespondentNo.3herein,submittedapetitionto

theHon’bleSpeakertotakeactionagainstthe

presentPetitionerforhisanti-partyactivities.

32.29.04.201

9

NoticeD.O Letterno5130/2019-1,TNLAS (B-I)

dated29.04.2019onpetitionfordisqualification

underTenthScheduleoftheConstitutionwere

issuedtothem bySpeaker(RespondentNo.1)to

thepetitioner.

Note:The said notice was received by the

Petitioneron01.05.2019.

33.

30.04.201

9

Ashasappearedfrom thenewspaperarticlesand

also the Petitionerhas reliably learntthaton

30.04.2019itself,thesecondlargestpartyinthe

Housemovedano-confidencemotionagainstthe

Hon’bleSpeaker/RespondentNo.1underArticle

179(c)oftheConstitutionofIndiaforreasonthat

theRespondentNo.1isnotactingimpartially,

specifically in matters emanating underTenth

Schedule.


34. 03.05.201

9

As itis constitutionally impermissible forthe

Respondentno1toproceedwithdisqualification

petitionduringpendencyofno-confidenceagainst

himself,hencethepresentWritPetition.





[UNDERARTICLE32OFCONSTITUTIONOFINDIA]

BETWEEN:

V.T.Kalaiselvan

Vridhachalam Constituency,

207GodownRoad,

PeriyarNagar(North),

Vridhachalam,CuddaloreDistrict-606001…..PETITIONER

Versus

1.

Mr.P.Dhanapal,

Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative

Assembly,FortSt.George,Chennai600

009,

TamilNadu

RESPONDENTNO.1

2.

TheSecretary

TamilNaduLegislativeAssemblyFort

St.George,Chennai600 009,Tamil

Nadu

RESPONDENTNO.2

3.

Mr.S.Rajendiran,MLA

ChiefGovernmentWhip

TamilNaduLegislativeAssembly

FortSt.George,Chennai600009 RESPONDENTNO.3

WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE32OFTHECONSTITUION OF

INDIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OFWRIT OFPROHIBITION OR ANY

OTHERAPPROPRIATEWRIT/ORDERSTOTHERESPONDENTSTO

CEASETOPROCEEDINTHEPETITIONFILEDUNDERTHETENTH


SCHEDULE

To,

THEHON'BLECHIEFJUSTICEOFINDIA,

ANDHISCOMPANIONJUSTICESOFTHE

SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA.

THEHUMBLEPETITIONOFTHE

PETITIONERABOVENAMED

MOSTRESPECTFULLYSHOWETH:

1.ThatthePetitionerisconstrainedtomovethisHon’bleCourtby

way ofthis instantWritPetition underArticle 32 ofthe

Constitution ofIndia,seeking issuance ofWrit,Order,or

directionseekingprohibitionagainsttheRespondentno1from

proceedingpursuanttothenoticeD.OLetterno5130/2019-1,

TNLAS (B-I) DATED 29.04.2019 on the petition for

disqualification filed underthe Tenth Schedule initiated by

RespondentNo.3againstthePetitioner.

2.ThePetitionersaysandsubmitsthatthelimitedfacts,which

maybenecessaryforconsideringtheinstantwritpetitionare

asfollows-

2.1. On demise ofDrJ.Jayalalitha,on06.12.2016,Mr.O.

Panneerselvam (“OPS”)waselectedastheleaderofAll

IndiaAnnaDravidaMunnetraKazhagam (“AIADMK”)and

wassworninasChiefMinisterofTamilNadu.


2.2. Duetointernalpartydifferences,OPSresignedfrom the

post of Chief Minister on 05.02.2017 and was

subsequentlyremovedfrom membershipoftheAIADMK

on10.02.2017.

2.3. Mr.EdappadiK.Palanisamy(“EPS”)wassworninasChief

Ministeron16.02.2017.Onthesameday,theGovernorof

TamilNadudirectedEPStoprovemajoritysupportinhis

favourbywayofafloortest.

2.4. TheTamilNaduLegislativeAssemblywasconvenedfor

thepurposeofthefloorteston18.02.2017.Themotion

wasputtovoteandcarriedby122MLAsvotinginfavour

ofthemotionandOPSand10MLAsvotingagainstthe

motion.

2.5. On16.03.2017,thedisgruntlegroupofMLA’swhovoted

againstthe confidence motion including OPS filed a

symboldisputeclaimingsplitinAIADMKParty.

2.6. On 20.03.2017,some MLAsofthe AIADMK presented

petitionsbeforetheHon’bleSpeaker/RespondentNo.1

under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly

(Disqualification on Ground ofDefection)Rules,1986

(“DisqualificationRules”)seekingdisqualificationofOPS

and10otherMLA’sunderPara2(1)(b)oftheRules.No

actionhasbeentakenbytheRespondentNo.1tilldate

neitheranynoticehasbeenissued.

2.7. An overwhelming majorityof122 MLA’s and 37 MP’s

supported the group led by V.K.Sasikala and TTV

DhinakaranwhereinthePetitionerwasalsooneofthe


supporters.ItispertinenttonotethatevenEPSsupported

theirleadership.However,ECIpassed aninterim order

dated 22.03.2017 and gave 2 separate name AIADMK

(Amma)and AIADMK (PuratchiThalaiviAmma)to the

respectivegroupsledbyVKSasikalaandTTVDhinakaran

andthegroupledbyOPS.

2.8. 19 MLAs of the AIADMK submitted individual

representationsto theHon’bleGovernoron22.08.2017

raisingallegationsofnepotism,corruption,abuseofpower

etc.againstthepresentChiefMinister.

2.9. ApetitionfordisqualificationunderPara2(1)(a)wasfiled

by the RespondentNo.2 againstthe 19 MLAs on

24.08.2017.Ontheverysameday,theRespondentNo.1

issuednoticetothesaid19MLAs.

2.10.TheLeaderofOpposition,Mr.M.K.Stalinwritestothe

Governoron 26.08.2017 seeking direction to theChief

MinistertoprovehismajorityontheflooroftheHouse.

2.11.Within two days i.e. on 28.08.2017,the Privileges

Committeeissuesshow causenoticetoMr.M.K.Stalin

and20otherMLAsoftheDMKinrespectofanincident

relatingto19thJuly2017.

2.12.On 18.09.2017,DMK moves to Hon’ble High Courtof

MadrasvideW.P.No.24708of2017seekingissuanceof

writofMandamusdirectingtheRespondentstherein,to

holdtrustvoteintheTamilNaduLegislativeAssembly.

Giventhatsuchpetitionwasfiled,theRespondentNo.1

expeditedtheproceedingsfordisqualificationofthe19


MLAsandpassedanorderdated18.09.2017disqualifying

the18MLA’s.Disqualificationproceedingsagainstone

MLAwasdroppedsincehetenderedanapology.

2.13.18MLAsfiledWritPetitionsNo.25260to25267of2017

and 25393 to 25402 of 2017 challenging the

disqualification orderdated 18.09.2017 passed bythe

RespondentNo.1Speaker.

2.14.WritPetitionNo.26017of2017wasfiledbeforeHon’ble

HighCourtofJudicatureatMadrason25.09.2017seeking

fora mandamus directing the RespondentNo.1 to

disqualifythe11MLA’sonaccountofpetitionsfiledon

20.03.2017.

2.15.Symboldispute was decided byECIvide orderdated

23.11.2017anditwasheldthatgroupledbyEPSandOPS

istheAIADMK.

2.16.OrderpassedbyECIwaschallengedbyV.K.Sasikalaand

TTVDhinakaranviderespectivewritpetitionWP(C)No.

10725of2017andWP(C)No.10728of2017filedbefore

theHon’bleHighCourtofDelhion29.11.2017.

2.17.TheHon’bleHighCourtpassedfinalorderandJudgment

dated27.04.2018inWPNos.26017,27853to27856of

2017(11MLAdisqualification)whereinthewritpetitions

weredismissedonthegroundthattheissueispending

beforethisHon’bleCourt.

2.18.TheHon’bleHighCourtpassedfinalorderandJudgment

dated14.06.2018in(18MLAsdisqualification)wherea

splitverdictwaspronouncedbytheHon’bleChiefJustice


whereasHon’bleChiefJusticewaspleasedtodismissthe

WritPetitionsHon’bleMr.JusticeM.Sundarwaspleased

toallow thesame,constrainingHon’bleChiefJusticeto

referthemattertoa3rdHon’bleJudge.

2.19.Thejudgmentdated27.04.2018passedbytheHon’ble

HighCourtinWritPetitionNo.27583,27584,27585&

27586of2017(pertainingto11MLAs)waschallenged

beforetheSupremeCourtinCivilAppealNo.5156of2018,

5866of2018and5862-5864of2018whereinthisHon’ble

Courtwas pleased to issue notice and the matteris

pendingforconsideration.

2.20.TheHon’blethird judgepassed itsfinaljudgmentand

orderdismissingtheWritPetitionsNos.25260to25267of

2017and25393to25402of2017fordisqualification18

MLA’s.

2.21.On18.04.2018,electionswereheldon18constituencies

afterdisqualificationofsaidMLA’s.

2.22.Orderdated07.02.2019waspassedbythisHon’bleCourt

inM.A.No.31of2019inSLP(C)7258of2018holding

thatthegroupledbyV.K.SasikalaandTTVDhinakaranis

entitledforacommonsymbol.

2.23.Orderdated28.02.2019waspassedbytheHon’bleHigh

CourtofDelhidismissingthewritpetitionsfiledbyV.K.

SasikalaandTTVDhinakarantherebyconfirmingthefinal

orderdated23.11.2017passedbytheECI.

2.24.OrderpassedbytheHighCourtofDelhiinWP(C)No.

10725 of2017 and WP (C)No.10728 of2017 was


challengedbyV.K.SasikalaandTTVDhinakaranvideSLP

beforethisHon’bleCourton05.03.2019.

2.25.Orderdated26.03.2019waspassedbythisHon’bleCourt

in CivilAppealNo.3205 of2019 allotting a common

symboltothecandidatesledbyTTVDhinakarangroup.

2.26.A review petition bearing Diaryno.15092 of2019 on

24.04.2019wasfiledbyMrs.VKSasikalaseekingreview

ofthe orderofthis Hon’ble Courtdated 26.03.2019

dismissing the specialleave petition challenging the

findingthatEPSandOPSaretherealparty.

2.27.ChiefWhipofAIADMKnamelyS.Rajendran,Respondent

No.3herein,submittedapetitionon26.04.2019tothe

Hon’ble Speaker to take action against the present

Petitionerforhisanti-partyactivities.

Atruecopyofthepetitiondated26.04.2019filedbyThiruS.

Rajendiran,MLA,ChiefGovernmentWhip is annexed

herewithandmarkedasAnnexureP/1.

2.28.On29.04.2019,theHon’bleSpeaker/RespondentNo.1

issuedanoticetothePetitionerunderTenthScheduleof

theConstitution.

AtruecopyofthenoticeD.OLetterno5130/2019-1,TNLAS(B-I)

dated 29.04.2019issued by The Secretary is annexed

herewithandmarkedasAnnexureP/2.

2.29.Ashasappearedfrom thenewspaperarticlesandalsothe

Petitionerhasreliablylearntthaton30.04.2019itself,the

secondlargestpartyintheHouse,vizDMK,hasmoveda

noticeofresolutionforno-confidenceagainsttheHon’ble


Speaker/RespondentNo.1 underArticle179 (c)ofthe

ConstitutionofIndiaforthereasonthattheRespondentNo.

1isnotactingimpartially,specificallyinmattersemanating

underTenthSchedule.Whileononehand,theRespondent

No.1 is acting in utmosthaste in issuing notices and

disqualifyinglegislators,however,hasfailedtoevenissue

noticetilldate,i.e.afterlapseoftwoyears,totheDeputy

ChiefMinisterofTamilNaduand10otherMLA’sdespitethe

factthattheyvotedagainsttheconfidencemotionmovedby

theirownpartyandvotedcontrarytothedirectionsissuedto

them.

2.30.ThatasperlawlaiddownbytheConstitutionBenchofthis

Hon’bleCourtinNabam Rebia(supra),itisconstitutionally

impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate upon

disqualificationpetitionsundertheTenthSchedule,whilea

noticeofresolutionforhisownremovalfrom theofficeof

Speaker,ispending.

2.31.ThatthepetitionerapprehendsthattheRespondentno1,

despitetheabovenotedconstitutionalmandate,takingaway

jurisdiction of the respondent no 1 to adjudicate the

disqualificationpetition,wouldproceedfurtheranddecide

thedisqualificationpetitionon6.05.2019,thedatefixedin

thenotice.Hencethepresentwritpetitionseekingwritof

Prohibitionisbeingmoved.

GROUNDS


A. BecauseitisconstitutionallyimpermissibleforaSpeakerto

adjudicateupondisqualificationpetitionsundertheTenth


from theofficeofSpeaker,ispending.Henceintheinstant

caseitisimpermissiblefortheRespondentno1toproceed

pursuanttothenoticeD.OLetterno5130/2019-1,TNLAS(B-I)

DATED 29.04.2019onthepetitionfordisqualificationfiled

undertheTenth Scheduleinitiated byRespondentNo.3

againstthe Petitioner.Forready reference para 194 of

Nabam Rabiajudgmentisquotedbelow:-

“194.Forthereasonsrecordedhereinabove,weherebyhold,

thatitwouldbeconstitutionallyimpermissibleforaSpeaker

toadjudicateupondisqualificationpetitionsundertheTenth


from theofficeofSpeaker,ispending.”

B. BecausethisHon’bleCourtinNabam Rebia(supra)hasheld

asunder-

“189.WhenthepositionofaSpeakerisunderchallenge,

throughanoticeofresolutionforhisremoval,itwould“seem”

justandappropriate,thattheSpeakerfirstdemonstrateshis

righttocontinueassuch,bywinningsupportofthemajority

in the State Legislature.The action ofthe Speakerin

continuing,withoneormoredisqualificationpetitionsunder

theTenthSchedule,whilstanoticeofresolutionforhisown

removal,from the office ofSpeakeris pending,would


“appear”tobeunfair.”

C. Becausetheterm ‘allthethenmembersoftheAssembly’

usedinArticle179meanthecompositionoftheHouseat

thedate/timeofgivingofnoticeof14daysforremovalof

theSpeakerandconsequentlynochangeinthecomposition

oftheHouseispermissibleoncesuchanoticeisgiventill

thepassingoftheresolutionunderArticle179(c).Inthis

regardrelianceisplacedonConstituentAssemblyDebates

of02.06.1949onDraftArticle179(c).

D. Becauseapersonwhoseauthorityisundera‘cloud’ought

nottodecidethefateofotherstillthe‘cloud’isremoved.

E. BecausethepetitionerapprehendsthattheRespondentno1,

despitetheabovenotedconstitutionalmandate,takingaway

jurisdiction of the respondent no 1 to adjudicate the

disqualificationpetition,wouldproceedfurtheranddecide

thedisqualificationpetitionon6.05.2019,thedatefixedin

thenotice.

F. Becausethepowerwhichflowsfrom theintroductionof

TenthSchedulebyconstitutionalamendmentisrequiredto

be harmoniouslyconstrued with Article 179(c).Both the

provisionsoftheConstitutionaremeanttosubservethe

purpose ofsustenance ofdemocracy which is a basic

featureoftheConstitution.ThemajorityinManojNarulav.

Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1 were speaking about

democracyhasopinedthatdemocracyinIndiaisaproduct


oftheruleoflawanditisnotonlyapoliticalphilosophybut

alsoanembodimentofconstitutionalphilosophy.

G. Becauseregardbeinghadtothelanguageemployedinthe

Article179(c)oftheConstitutionandtheroleascribedtothe

SpeakerundertheTenthSchedule,itisnecessarythatthe

Speakeras a tribunalhave complete detachmentand

perceivable impartiality.When there is an expression of

intentiontomovetheresolutiontoremovehim,itisrequisite

thatheshouldstandthetestandthenproceed.Thatisthe

intendmentofArticle 179(c)and the said interpretation

servesthelitmustestofsustaineddemocracyfoundedon

RuleofLaw;andthefoundingfathershadsointendedand

theconstitutionalvalue,trustandmoralityunequivocallyso

suggest.

H. Because itwould be an anathema to the conceptof

constitutionaladjudication,ifthe Speakeris allowed to

initiate proceeding under the Tenth Schedule of the

Constitutionafterintentiontoremovehim from hisofficeis

moved.

I. Because Speakers against whom resolutions for their

removalhavebeenmoved,areknowntohaveresortedto

unsavourymeans,todeferconsiderationthereon.Reliancein

thisregardisplacedonStateofPunjabV.SatyaPalDang

19691SCR478,K.A.Mathialaganvs.MalaDevi1988SCC


OnLine Mad 161,and Nipamacha Singh vs.Secretary,

ManipurLegislativeAssembly2001SCCOnLineGau12.

J. BecauseasPetitionerhasnootheralternativeefficacious

remedy,heismovingthepresentpetitionunderArticle32for

thereasonthatactionoftheRespondentno1iswithout

jurisdiction,arbitraryandactuatedwithmalice.Theactionof

R-1isviolativeoffundamentalrightofthepetitionerunder

Article14and19(1)(a)asitislikelytohampertherightof

freespeechandexpressionofthepetitioner.Further,byway

of this writ the petitioner is seeking enforcement of

fundamentalconstitutionaldutycastedupontherespondent

no1.

3.That in view of the aforesaid facts,the petitioner has

approachedthisHon’bleCourtbywayofthispetitionasthereis

nootherequallyefficaciousalternateremedyavailabletothe

petitionerforthereliefprayedforinthispetition.

4.The petitionerhas notfiled any otherappealorpetition

impugningtheactionasinthepresentpetitioneitherinthis

Hon'bleCourtorinanyotherCourtinIndia.

PRAYER

In aforesaid facts & circumstances,itis mostrespectfully

prayedthatYOURLORDSHIPSmaygraciouslybepleasedto:-

(i) Issueawrit,orderordirectioninnatureofProhibition

againstthe Respondent no 1,restraining him from

proceedingfurtherpursuanttothenoticeD.O Letterno


5130/2019-1,TNLAS (B-I)DATED 29.04.2019 on the

petitionfordisqualificationfiledundertheTenthSchedule

initiatedbyRespondentNo.3againstthePetitioner;

(ii) Passsuchfurtherandotherordersasmaybedeemed

justandproperinthefactsandcircumstancesofthe

case.

ANDFORTHISACTOFKINDNESSTHEPETITIONERSHALLEVER

PRAYASDUTYBOUND

DRAWN&FILEDBY

DrawnOn:

FiledOn:

[AMITANANDTIWARI]

ADVOCATEFORTHEPETITIONER





INTHEMATTEROF:


VERSUS


CERTIFICATE

CertifiedthatthepresentWritPetitionisconfinedonlytothe

pleadingsbeforetheCourtwhoseorderischallengedandtheother

documentsrelieduponinthoseproceedings.Noadditionalfacts,

documentsorgroundshavebeentakenthereinorrelieduponin

thewritpetition. Itisfurthercertified thatthecopiesofthe

documents/annexuresattachedtotheWritPetitionarenecessary

toanswerthequestionoflawraisedinthepetitionortomakeout

groundsurgedintheWritPetitionforconsiderationofthisHon’ble

Court.Thiscertificateisgivenonthebasisoftheinstructiongiven

bythePetitionerwhoseaffidavitisfiledinsupportoftheWrit

Petition.

FILEDBY


[AMITANANDTIWARI]

NEW DELHI: ADVOCATEFORTHEPETITIONER

FILEDON:



I.A.NO. OF2019

IN


INTHEMATTEROF:


VERSUS


ANAPPLICATIONFORSTAY

TO,

THEHON’BLECHIEFJUSTICEOFINDIA

&HISCOMPANIONHON’BLEJUDGESOF

THEHON’BLESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA.

THEHUMBLEAPPLICATIONOF

THEPETITIONERSABOVENAMED

MOSTRESPECTFULLYSHOWETH:

1.ThatthePetitionerhasfiledtheaccompanyingWritPetition

underArticle32oftheConstitutionapprehendingactionbeing

taken by the Hon’ble Speaker/ RespondentNo.1 in the


disqualificationpetitionmovedagainsthim andproceedings

initiatedundertheTenthSchedule.

2.ThattheApplicant/PetitionerseekslibertyofthisHon’bleCourt

toreferandrelyuponthesubmissionsmadeandcontentions

raised in the accompanying writ petition during the

considerationofthisapplicationbythisHon’bleCourtandthe

contentsthereinarenotbeingrepeatedhereinforthesakeof

brevity.

3.Thatitisrespectfullysubmittedthatano-confidencemotion

againsttheHon’bleSpeaker/RespondentNo.1underArticle

179(c)oftheConstitutionofIndiahasbeenmovedbythe

LeaderofOpposition oftheHouseand sincethesameis

pending,itisconstitutionallyimpermissiblefortherespondent

no 1to proceedandadjudicatepetitionfordisqualification

undertheTenthScheduleasperthelaw laiddownbythe

ConstitutionalBench ofthis Hon’ble Courtin the case of

Nabam Rebia&BamangFelixvs.DeputySpeaker,Arunachal

PradeshLegislativeAssembly&Ors.(2016)8SCC1.

4.ThatthePetitionerisoneoftheMLAtowhom show cause

noticehasbeenissuedbytheRespondentNo.1underrule6of

TamilNaduLegislativeAssembly(DisqualificationonGround

ofDefection)Rules1986.ThePetitionerisrequiredtoreplyto

thesaidnoticewithin7daysofitsissuancefailingwhichthe


Petitioner,theRespondentNo.1maygoaheadandpassan

orderunderTenthScheduletherebydisqualifyingthePetitioner.

5.Thatiftheinterim orderisnotgranted,thePetitionerwillbeput

to irreparable injury and hardship, which cannot be

compensatedintermsofmoney.Balanceofconvenienceisin

thefavourofthepetitionerandagainsttherespondents.

PRAYER

InviewoffactsandcircumstancesofthecasethisHon’bleCourt

maygraciouslybepleasedtograntfollowingex-parteadinterim

relief:

a) StaytheproceedinginitiatedbytheRespondentNo.1under

TenthSchedulevidenoticebearingnumberD.O Letterno

5130/2019-1,TNLAS(B-I)DATED29.04.2019onthepetition

fordisqualificationfiledundertheTenthScheduleinitiated

by RespondentNo.1 againstthe Petitionerduring the

pendencyofthepresentwritpetition;and/or

b) GrantsuchotherreliefthatthisHon’bleCourtmaydeem fit

inthefactsandcircumstancesofthematter.

ANDFORTHISACTOFKINDNESSTHEPETITIONERASINDUTYBOUNDSHALLEVERPRAY

DRAWNANDFILEDBY


Filedon:

[AMITANANDTIWARI]ADVOCATEFORTHEPETITIONER
