HC admits petition on speaker disqualification

Chennai, Dec 22 (UNI) Madras High Court today admitted a petition seeking to declare illegal, resolutions relaxing Rule 68 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (TNLA) Rules and consequent defeat of the resolution seeking removal of Speaker R Avudaiappan.

Passing interim orders on a petition filed by AIADMK MLA and Deputy Leader of the Opposition O Paneerselvam, Ms Justice K Suguna ordered notice to the TNLA Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Secretary.

According to the petitioner, AIADMK MLA M Thambidurai had on August 2, preferred a notice to the TNLA secretary, to move a resolution for the Speaker's removal. As per the Article 179 (c) of the Constitution and Rule 68 of TNLA rules, it was mandatory to give the notice in advance for 14 days. But Rule 68 was relaxed and the resolution was taken up for debate the next day. It was subsequently declared that the resolution was defeated.

In her interim order, the judge said the question was whether the notice referred to under Article 179 (c) of the Constitution was for the benefit of the person against whom the resolution was proposed or to enable members to prepare to meet the subject in issue in the proposed resolution. It was admitted by both counsel that till date this issue was not subjected to judicial scrutiny.

The issue needed examination, which could be done only after hearing both parties at length.

Yet another issue to be gone into was whether the procedure envisaged under Article 179 (c) of the Constitution could be overridden by relaxing Rule 68 of the TNLA Rules. That apart, the Advocate General's argument that an Assembly Speaker's action was above judicial scrutiny and so this court did not have powers to entertain this petition, could not stand in view of the Supreme Court judgement dated December 11, 2006.

The apex court had said the Speaker, while exercising power to disqualify a member, acted as a Tribunal, and though the validity of the order so passed could be questioned in the writ jurisdiction of this court or High Courts, the scope of judicial review was limited as laid down by the Constitutional Bench.

The order could be challenged on the ground of ultra vires or malafide or having been made with colourable exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant consideration.

For these reasons, the present writ petition was admitted, the judge added.

UNI XR AA KD RAI2032