TN Assembly heading for confrontation with judiciary

Chennai, Jan 27: The Tamil Nadu Assembly is heading for a confrontation with the judiciary, with the Speaker R Avudaiyappan declaring that no court order or notices would be binding on the House and the Assembly Secretariat need not accept any notice from the court.

The Speaker, without mentioning about the pendency of a case against him in the Madras High Court, filed by the opposition AIADMK, said no court order or advice on cases filed against the conduct of the proceedings of the House would be binding on the House, which enjoyed the soverignity provided in the Constitution.

''Hence, I order, with the permission of the House, that the Assembly Secretary, who is in a position to implement the orders of the House or Assembly Secretariat officials need not accept any notice, order or advise sent through the court,'' the Speaker said.

His announcement assumed significance in the wake of Madras High Court ordering notices to the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the Secretary, on a petition filed by AIADMK Deputy Leader of the opposition O Panneerselvam against rejection of a no-confidence motion against the Speaker on August three.

Rejecting the contention that the Assembly Speaker's actions were above judicial scrutiny, Ms Justice K Suguna, had admitted the petition and ordered issue of notices. Citing a Supreme court order that ''the orders (of Speaker) can be challenged on the ground of ultra vires or malafides or having been made in colourable exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations'', she said the issue raised in the writ petition could be analysed only after admitting the petition and hearing both the parties at length.

The AIADMK argued that the rejection of its resolution, seeking removal of the Speaker was not in consonance with the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 179 (C) of the Constitution and Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Assembly Rules.

Advocate-General R Viduthalai said there was a constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution for court inquiry into the Assembly proceedings, but the contention was rejected by Ms Justice Suguna.

UNI