<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 16) deferred considering a plea by DMK leader R Sakkrapani for a direction to Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker to decide forthwith upon the disqualification petition pending before him since March 20, 2017, against 11 AIADMK MLAs, including Deputy Chief Minister O Paneerselvam.</p>.<p>On February 18, 2017, these MLAs have voted against the vote of confidence moved by their own party AIADMK leader and then Chief Minister E K Palaniswami. </p>.<p>On Tuesday, a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna adjourned the matter and posted it for consideration after 15 days. </p>.<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the DMK leader. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan represented the other side.</p>.<p>The petition filed by advocate Amit Anand Tiwari contended that the "inaction" of Speaker P Dhanapal in not deciding the issue despite an order of the top court on February 14, 2020, was "arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 164(1B), 191 and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution". This was also in the teeth of the judgements of this court, it added.</p>.<p>The petitioner pointed out the Speaker's inaction clearly violated the constitutional mandate as the Supreme Court in 'Keisham Meghachandra Singh's decision on January 21, 2020, has laid down the law requiring all the Speakers in the country to decide the disqualification petitions within a period of three months.</p>.<p>By voting against the Chief Minister of the AIADMK in a confidence vote by 11 MLAs had voluntarily given up the membership of the party in 2017. Their subsequent act of coming back to the party will be of no help as the issue had to be decided with respect to their act, the plea submitted.</p>.<p>The petitioner alleged the "mala fide" on the part of the Speaker was evident from his haste in disqualifying 18 MLAs on the apprehension of their voting against the motion, while taking no action with respect to the defection of 11 of these legislators, who actually voted against the motion.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 16) deferred considering a plea by DMK leader R Sakkrapani for a direction to Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker to decide forthwith upon the disqualification petition pending before him since March 20, 2017, against 11 AIADMK MLAs, including Deputy Chief Minister O Paneerselvam.</p>.<p>On February 18, 2017, these MLAs have voted against the vote of confidence moved by their own party AIADMK leader and then Chief Minister E K Palaniswami. </p>.<p>On Tuesday, a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna adjourned the matter and posted it for consideration after 15 days. </p>.<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the DMK leader. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Balaji Srinivasan represented the other side.</p>.<p>The petition filed by advocate Amit Anand Tiwari contended that the "inaction" of Speaker P Dhanapal in not deciding the issue despite an order of the top court on February 14, 2020, was "arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 164(1B), 191 and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution". This was also in the teeth of the judgements of this court, it added.</p>.<p>The petitioner pointed out the Speaker's inaction clearly violated the constitutional mandate as the Supreme Court in 'Keisham Meghachandra Singh's decision on January 21, 2020, has laid down the law requiring all the Speakers in the country to decide the disqualification petitions within a period of three months.</p>.<p>By voting against the Chief Minister of the AIADMK in a confidence vote by 11 MLAs had voluntarily given up the membership of the party in 2017. Their subsequent act of coming back to the party will be of no help as the issue had to be decided with respect to their act, the plea submitted.</p>.<p>The petitioner alleged the "mala fide" on the part of the Speaker was evident from his haste in disqualifying 18 MLAs on the apprehension of their voting against the motion, while taking no action with respect to the defection of 11 of these legislators, who actually voted against the motion.</p>
