Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
M.K. Stalin - Petitioner
Versus
The Speaker, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 24156, 24157, 24159 to 24171, 24173 to 24176 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 29458, 25527, 25534, 25495 to 25497, 25500 to 25517, 25519 to 25525, 25528 to 25532, 25518, 25533, 25535, 29445 to 29446, 29448 to 29457, 29459 to 29460, 29462 to 29465 of 2017
Decided On : 25-08-2020
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226, 212 , 208, 14, 19 and 21 - Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules - Rule 226 - Press and Registration of Books Act - Section 7 - Gutkha sachets - Unlawful banned trade of Gutkha - Breached privilege of the House - Twenty-one Members of Opposition in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly representing DMK Party were put to notice by the Speaker for having allegedly breached privilege of the House while conducting themselves when they raised an issue of accountability of Government regarding flourishing of unlawful banned trade of Gutkha in State by physically displaying Gutkha sachets as well as photographs of certain shops where such items were being sold - It is case of the petitioners that the sachets and photographs were exhibited in order to emphasize and impress upon House as well as Treasury Benches that action deserved to be taken - It is their contention that no immediate action was either proposed or taken, but incident dated that had created a turmoil within Ruling Party, prompted Speaker to mala fidely issue notices dated that are impugned in writ petitions - Allegation is that 18 MLAs of Ruling Party, namely, AIADMK, submitted a memorandum to His Excellency Governor informing him about withdrawing support to Government headed by Chief Minister - On Chief Whip of Government tendered a petition before Speaker alleging disqualification, on which Speaker issued notices to all 18 MLAs - Held, It is correct that the incident on falls between a close proximity of all incidents that have been narrated by learned counsel for petitioners, but merely because incident falls in between, notice itself, consequences whereof are yet to be decided, cannot be conclusively and clinchingly said to be actuated by malice, unless it is found that powers to initiate privilege motion are a colourable exercise of power and arise out of some element of personal bias or revenge, so as to constitute malice - Court will say nothing further as it would not be appropriate to pronounce upon such an issue finally when alleged breach may be examined by Committee of Privileges - Even otherwise, in an appropriate case, such an issue may have to be examined on touchstone of political question doctrine vis-a-vis loyalties and confidence in matters of support or otherwise by Members of a legislative body in formation of a government and impact of legal provisions on such issues - Learned Advocate General contended that this entire sequence of events had not been correctly stated, as government continued to enjoy a majority confidence and at no stage was there any lack of numbers to support government - Court do not propose to enter into this issue of counting numbers either in support or otherwise, as Court decline to go into this issue of mala fides, being dependent upon political developments regarding sustenance of government - With aforesaid observations, all writ petitions are partly allowed and stand disposed of - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ORDER :
A.P. Sahi, J.
1. Twenty-one Members of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly representing the DMK Party were put to notice by the Speaker for having allegedly breached the privilege of the House while conducting themselves on 19.7.2017, when they raised an issue of accountability of the Government regarding flourishing of the unlawful banned trade of Gutkha in the State by physically displaying Gutkha sachets as well as photographs of certain shops where such items were being sold. It is the case of the petitioners that the sachets and photographs were exhibited in order to emphasize and impress upon the House as well as the Treasury Benches that action deserved to be taken, as the trade was being negotiated in the State of Tamil Nadu under the shadow of a particular Minister of the Government as well as high administrative officials, who were actively involved in the abetment of such unlawful trade.
2. It is their contention that no immediate action was either proposed or taken, but the incident dated 18.2.2017 and 22.8.2017 that had created a turmoil within the Ruling Party, prompted the Speaker to mala fidely issue the notices dated 28.8.2017 that are impugned in the writ petitions. The allegation is that on 22.8.2017, 18 MLAs of the Ruling Party, namely, AIADMK, submitted a memorandum to His Excellency the Governor informing him about withdrawing support to the Government headed by the Chief Minister, Mr. Edappadi K. Palaniswami. On 24.8.2017, the Chief Whip of the Government tendered a petition before the Speaker alleging disqualification, on which the Speaker issued notices to all the 18 MLAs. This was followed by a letter written by the Leader of Opposition, Mr. M.K. Stalin, requesting the Governor to direct the Chief Minister to prove his majority on the floor of the House in view of the aforesaid developments.
3. The Speaker called for a meeting of the Privileges Committee on 28.8.2017 alleging breach of privilege of the House in respect of the incident referred to above on 19.7.2017, when the petitioners are alleged to have carried with them and displayed Gutkha sachets as well as photographs of the shops that had indulged in selling such banned items. On the very same day, the notices were issued to all the 21 DMK MLAs, whereupon the present writ petitions came to be instituted on 5.9.2017.
4. An interim order was passed by the High Court on 7.9.2017 restraining the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, namely the Deputy Speaker, third respondent herein, not to pass any order in respect of the impugned notices.
5. The Opposition DMK party moved the High Court through a separate petition seeking a direction for a trust vote, and on 18.9.2017 itself the Speaker disqualified 18 MLAs of the AIADMK party under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The said disqualified MLAs filed their own writ petitions. When a Division Bench, on a split view taken, referred the matter to a third Judge, the disqualifications were upheld by a majority of 2:1.
6. The issue raised with regard to the Gutkha scam and the criminal proceedings relating thereto came to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court, where the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the order of the High Court on 26.4.2018. The said judgment was assailed before the Apex Court and was upheld by the Supreme Court in E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 365. The officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation raided 40 places, including the premises of the Health Minister and the Director General of Police and the said proceedings are on.
7. It is in this background that a mention was made by the learned Advocate General, Government of Tamil Nadu to hear these petitions, as they have been pending for almost three years with an interim order operating in favour of the petitioners.
SUBMISSIONS:
8.1. Mr. R. Shanmughasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has advanced his submissions contending
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
