Nomination of 3 MLAs to Pondy Assembly is valid, Madras HC sets aside Speaker's order

Chennai: Holding that nomination of 3 MLAs to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly is valid, the Madras high court has set aside the order of the Speaker, refusing to accept and recognise the 3 MLAs as members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar dismissed the petition filed by K. Lakshminarayanan, the whip of the ruling Congress Party (INC) and a PIL filed by S. Dhanalakshmi, assailing the nomination of 3 MLAs while allowing the petitions filed by the nominated 3 MLAs V. Saminathan, K.G. Shankar and S. Selvaganapathy, challenging an order the Speaker, rejecting their claim that they are members of legislative assembly.

Dismissing the petitions, the bench said, “We have no difficulty in accepting that the nominations have been made by an appropriate authority in accordance with section 3 (3) of the UT Act, which in other words traceable to Article 239A of the Constitution of India”.

Rejecting the challenge to section 3 (3) of the UT Act, the bench said the challenge to the constitutionality of section 3 (3) of UT Act cannot be sustained as it was predicated solely on the basis of misuse owing to the powers being unfettered/unguided and a possibility of misuse.

The nominated MLAs being members of a political party i.e BJP, was certainly not a bar for their nomination. It cannot be put against them. “We hold that there is no illegality or infirmity in the nomination of these three MLAs”, the bench added.

Allowing the petitions from 3 MLAs, the bench said while the competence of a legislator to sit in the House can be examined by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to Constitution of India, there was no constitutional provision for the Speaker to examine the validity or otherwise of nominations of legislators made to the legislative assembly. Speaker’s order was actually a legal scrutiny of the pro-cess of nominations and is tantamount to a verdict which has the effect of nullifying the nominations.

“Thus, we are afraid, is outside the realm of the Speaker’s power in his capacity as master of the house”, the bench added. The bench said, We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order and proceedings of the Speaker deserve to be set aside and quashed”.