Chennai: Nearing completion of its second year in office, no ruling party in recent memory in Tamil Nadu has been in such an unenviable position as the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government led by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami, as it inches its way to cross another landmark.
The State Assembly is all set to meet here on May 29 to complete the work of this year’s Budget session for voting on various demands for grants. It was the first real signal to cap several months of lingering political uncertainty in the wake of two sets of legal challenges, vis-a-vis disqualification of MLAs’, not from the opposition, but from within the ruling party itself given its wafer-thin majority.
Preceding this was the immaculately reasoned judgment by the first bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ms. Indira Banerjee and Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose of April 27. The judges dismissed the DMK Whip R Sakkarapani’s and two other related petitions seeking disqualification of 11 AIADMK MLAs’ including former Chief Minister, Mr. O. Pannerselvam for voting against the confidence vote sought by Chief Minister Mr. K. Palaniswami on February 18, 2017. He did so on the ground that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot take over the “duty of the Speaker and disqualify MLAs’ without a hearing as envisaged under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.”
Any such move, the HC Judges said, would “not only amount to judicial overreach, but it would also amount to gross breach of judicial discipline if not contempt,” as the larger question of “issuance of a writ of mandamus on the Speaker is pending consideration of the Supreme Court.” The High Court’s judgment has upheld the sacred, long-held separation of powers between the government’s three organs.
It was only natural that this judgment came as a huge relief to the AIADMK dispensation, with the ruling party, after former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s demise in December 2016, managing the show with 116 MLAs’. Also, 18 vacancies are to be filled in the 234-member House, in the wake of the internal turmoil in the party since her confidante Ms. V K Sasikala, became leader of the AIADMK legislature party, just weeks before the Apex court verdict in the assets case.
Interestingly, holding elections to the existing 18 vacant slots would again hinge on the High Court’s verdict in the other legal challenge to the subsequent disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs’ on September 18, 2017 (supporters of dissident leader T T V Dhinakaran who was later elected as an Independent candidate from R K Nagar constituency), by an order of the Assembly Speaker, Mr. P. Dhanapal. It was on a petition by the Chief Government Whip, S. Rajendiran, on the ground of (they) “voluntarily giving up of their membership of the AIADMK party” on giving a letter to the Governor on August 22, 2017, expressing loss of confidence in the Chief Minister since they were all elected on AIADMK symbol.
At least for now, there is no threat to stability of the AIADMK regime led by Mr. Palaniswami with Mr. O. Pannerselvam playing his deputy under a BJP-blessed merger formula last year. In fact, it was the re-induction of Mr. Pannerselvam and Mr. Mafoi K Pandiyarajan into the Cabinet by Mr. Palaniswami, both of whom were among the MLAs’ who voted against him that had sparked a flashpoint in the internal tussle with supporters of Dhinakaran. The latter was made party deputy general secretary before Sasikala left for Bengaluru prison.
Significantly, Justices Indira Banerjee and Abdul Quddhose have in their verdict pointed out to “one notable difference” between the first application to disqualify 11 AIADMK MLAs’ and challenging the disqualification of the 18 AIADMK MLAs’ in the second case. The Judges said that in the latter instance, the application of disqualification of the 18 (dissenting) MLAs’ was “filed by the Chief Party Whip and supported by the Chief Minister elected by the AIADMK (Legislature) party.”
But the application for disqualifying the 11 AIADMK MLAs’ including OPS in the first case was by a “few individual MLAs’ and is not supported either by the Party Whip or the majority of the members of the AIADMK party in the Legislative Assembly. The involvement of the party Whip or the Chief Minister elected by the party would be an important factor for determining whether the impugned action of an MLA has the approval or disapproval of the party,” the Judges pointed out.
This observation in the judgment, pertaining to the second case whose judgment is reserved, is significant as with the High Court having granted leave to the senior counsel, Mr. Shanmugasundaram, appearing for the DMK, to appeal in the Supreme Court. “Considering the importance of the issues involved in the writ petitions, which need to be settled by the Supreme Court, such leave is granted,” the Judges said.
By logical implication, this could only have the effect of extending the breather for the AIADMK government, as until the Apex court unambiguously decides the larger question of issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly, in the appeal against the latest HC judgment preferred by the DMK, it is unlikely that the second disqualification case of 18 AIADMK MLAs’ will be decided. For the High Court in the first case has made it clear that it does not want to step into a domain even “indirectly”, which is yet been prohibited by the Apex court.
Notwithstanding these legal and Constitutional niceties, political developments in Tamil Nadu could dramatically change in the months to come, ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. However, one larger sociological take-away from the High Court verdict and also from the ruling of the same HC Bench declining to order the removal of the portrait of Ms Jayalalithaa from the Assembly hall, is that party-based contestations to power has to be eventually settled in the
political theatre of elections in a democracy, and that there are limitations to judicial review of actions that take place within and outside any elected Assembly.
By all accounts, Mr. Palaniswami has weathered the storm, even if economic and issues of government staff took a back seat under the shadow of political uncertainty and the saffron threat. As his government completes two years, he could even feel satisfied that something legally workable is at last in the offing in implementing the Cauvery Tribunal’s final Award as modified by the Supreme Court. In the same breath, the political roller-coaster since February 2017 in Tamil Nadu has shown that the road to political survival is full of thorns.
