திமுக சின்னத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்ற கூட்டணி கட்சி எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்கள் எட்டு பேரை எதிர்கட்சி உறுப்பினர்களாக கருதக் கூடாதென சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் மனுத்தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.
திமுக சின்னத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்ற கூட்டணி கட்சி எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்கள் எட்டு பேரை எதிர்கட்சி உறுப்பினர்களாக கருதக் கூடாதென சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் மனுத்தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.
நடந்து முடிந்த சட்டமன்ற தேர்தலில் திமுக கூட்டணியில் போட்டியிட்ட மதிமுக, மனிதநேய மக்கள் கட்சி, கொங்குமக்கள் தேசிய கட்சி, தமிழக வாழ்வுரிமை கட்சிகளைச் சேர்ந்த சின்னப்பா, பூமி நாதன், சதன் திருமலை குமார், ராகுராமன், அப்துல் சமத், ஜவாஹிருல்லா, ஈஸ்வரன், வேல்முருகன் ஆகியோர் வெற்றி பெற்றதாக அறிவிக்கப்பட்டனர்.
திமுக சின்னமான உதயசூரியன் சின்னத்தில் போட்டியிட்டு வெற்றி பெற்ற இந்த எட்டு எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்களையும் எதிர்கட்சி எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்களாக கருதக் கூடாது என உத்தரவிடக் கோரி கோவையை சேர்ந்த லோகநாதன் என்பவர் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்துள்ளார்.
அந்த மனுவில், திமுக சின்னத்தில் போட்டியிட்டு வெற்றி பெற்ற 8 எம்.எல்.ஏ-க்களையும் எப்படி எதிர்க்கட்சி எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்களாக கருத முடியும் என்றும் இது ஜனநாயாகத்தை கேலி கூத்தாக்கும் செயல் எனவும் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.
மேலும், சட்டமன்றத்தில் பிரதிநிதித்துவம் இல்லாத கட்சிகளை சட்டமன்ற அனைத்து கட்சி கூட்டங்களுக்கு அழைக்கக் கூடாது எனவும் இந்த எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்களை எதிர்கட்சி எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்களாக கருதி, சட்டமன்றத்தில் தனி இருக்கை வழங்க கூடாது எனவும், சட்டமன்றத்தில் பேச தனியாக நேரம் ஒதுக்க கூடாது எனவும் மனுவில் கோரிக்கை விடுத்துள்ளார்.
இந்த வழக்கு விரைவில் விசாரணைக்கு வரும் என்று எதிர்பார்க்கப்படுகிறது.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
W P No: of 2021
- LOGANATHAN,
S/o Mr. R.Murugesan
Thalaivasal complex,
3rd Floor, No:525,
Cross cut road,
Coimbatore,
PIN: 641012. .. Petitioner
Vs
- The Hon’ble Speaker
Represented by Secretary to the
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai-600009.
- The Chief Election Commissioner of India,
Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001
- The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai-600009.
- The Secretary
Public Department
Government of Tami Nadu
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai-600009.
- The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Fort St George,
Chennai-600009.
- The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu,
Public (Elections) Department
Secretariat, Fort St George,
Chennai-600009.
- Mr. E.R.Eswaran, MLA,
S/o Mr. Ramaswamy,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Tiruchengodu AssemblyConstituency (96),
Old No.80, New No.46, U block,
5th Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600040.
- Mr. M.H. Jawahirulla, MLA,
S/o A.M.Hidayatullah
Member of Legislative Assembly,
PapanasamAssembly Constituency (172),
No. 52, Pillayarkovil street,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai-600106.
- Mr. K.Chinnappa, MLA,
S/o Mr. Kulandaivel,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
AriyalurAssemblyConstituency (149),
No.30B, Sanjeevirayankovil Street,
Ariyalur town, Ariyalur district,
PIN: 621704.
- Mr. M.Boominathan, MLA,
S/o Mr. V.Muniandi,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Madurai South Assembly Constituency (192),
No. 789, Karpaga Nagar, 3rd street,
- Pudur, Madurai, PIN: 625007.
- Mr. T. Velumurugan, MLA,
S/o Mr T.Thirunavukkarasu,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Panruti Assembly Constituency (154),
No. 310, West Street,
Puliyur Kattusagai,
Puliyur post, Kurinchipadi taluk,
Cuddalore District.
- Mr. P.Abdul Samad, MLA,
S/o Mr. Pakkir Mohamed,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Manapparai Assembly Constituency (138),
No. 286, Saddamuhassain Nagar, 1st street,
Pudupattinam, Chengalpattu district,
PIN: 603102.
- Mr. T.Sadhan Thirumalai Kumar, MLA,
S/o.Mr. Thirumalaiyandi,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Vasudevanallur Assembly Constituency (220),
No. 32, Chidambaram south street,
Puliyankudi, Kodayanallur taluk,
Tenkasi district.
14.Mr. A.R.R.Raghuraman, MLA,
S/o Mr. A.T.R.Rangaraj,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Sattur Assembly Constituency (204)
Door No.1-573-3 Pilliar Koil Street
Vachakarapatty Village
R.R.Nagar Post
Virudhunagar District
- Mr. M. Jagan Murthy, MLA
S/o Mr. Munusamy,
Member of Legislative Assembly,
Kilvaithinankuppam(SC) Assembly Constituency (45),
Old No.905, New No.736,
Gangai Amman Kovil Street,
Andarpet, Nemam Post,
Poonamalle Taluk, Tiruvallur District,
PIN: 600124. .. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF M LOGANATHAN
I, M. LOGANATHAN, S/o. Mr. R Murugesan, aged 48 years, residing at Plot No.525, Thalaivasal complex, 3-rd Floor, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore, PIN:641012, now temporarily came down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows.
1) I am the petitioner herein, I am a practicing Advocate and Ex- Secretary of Coimbatore Bar Association and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
2) I respectfully submit that my grandfather and his ancestors had participated in the freedom struggle movement against British Government, my ancestors contributed their time, wealth and soul to attain freedom from the British government. I am more sensitive towards upholding the rule of law, rights of citizen and democracy. I am aware that there is no alternative for democracy but the shortfalls has to be rectified through court of law. I file this petition purely in the public interest, I do not have any pecuniary interest on the outcome of the above proceedings. I do not have any grudge or grievance against respondents and I am not a member in any political party therefore I have an inherent courage to comment neutrally unlike politicians & members of political parties, who would blindly follow their high command, mostly without any logic and reason. I file this public interest litigation, based on personal information & knowledge that I got from information available in public domain and also from information got through Right to Information. I undertake to pay the exemplary cost if imposed on me by this Hon’ble High Court for filing a vexatious litigation. My PAN is AKAPM2485H and I am a practicing Advocate.
3) I submit that whenever Public were affected due to high handedness of authorities or due to any discrimination in implementation of law or violation of any fundamental rights, I raised my voice. I humbly state that during the lock down, I helped the poor & needy people by providing them food and grocery items. When I find any short fall or violation of law by law enforcing authorities or constitutional machineries, I recourse to law, I tried my level best to leave no stone unturned to uphold the democracy, rule of law and equity coupled with dharma. In the instant case, I carefully watched the 16th Assembly election conducted for Tamil Nadu State Assembly and subsequent developments happened in the political arena. Once the election date was announced, all political parties made alliance with big political parties for the purpose of winning the election but those alliances were not based on any principle or ideology. Prior to announcement of election date, each political party had criticized the other political parties and their policies & ideologies, acts & deeds and all projected to the Public that their respective ideology and policies are the best than the rest of political parties. After the date of announcement of election, each political party made an unholy alliance for a particular purpose only, i.e., to win the election. In order to win the election, they had gone to an extent of relinquishing their ideology if any, and/or their membership in their parent political party to which they were belonged to. But the democracy permits such kind of alliance and I hopefully believe that there would be an alternative solution for a check and balance to curb the alliance for a particular purpose.
4) I further submit that Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam won the 16th Assembly election, 133 MLAs won the seats by contesting in the DMK’s party symbol ‘rising sun’. The present ruling party DMK’s allies for the 16th Assembly election were INC-Indian National Congress, MDMK-Marumalarthci Dravida MunnetraKazhagam, VCK-Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, IUML-Indian Union Muslim League, CPI-Communist Party of India, CPI(M)-Communist Party of Indian(M), MMK-ManithaneyaMakkal Katchi, KMDK-KongunaduMakkal Desiya Katchi, TVK-TamizhagaVazhurimail Katchi and few other political parties. Similarly, All India Anna Dravida MunnetraKazhagam (AIADMK) allies were BJP-Bharthiya Janata Party, Pattali Makkal Katchi-PMK, Tamil Maanila Congress-TMC, Puratchi Bharatam-PB and few other political parties.
5) I further submit that the DMK contested the election with the “rising sun” symbol allotted by the Election Commission of India, the 2nd respondent herein. Similarly, AIADMK, INC, BJP, CPI, CPI(M), PMK and VCK contested the 16th Assembly election in their respective party symbols allotted by the Election Commission of India, the 2nd respondent herein. But MDMK-Marumalarthci Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Manithaneya Makkla Katchi-MMK, Kongunadu Makkal Desiya Katchi-KMDK, Tamizhaga Vazhuvurimai Katchi-TVK contested the election under the DMK political party symbol ‘rising sun’ and Puratchi Bharatham contested in AIADMK symbol ‘two leaves’. They were unable to contest the election with their respective own symbols because they failed to get 7% vote during the last election, inter alia, they could have contested in the election with any new symbol allotted by the Election Commission of India.
6) I further submit that prior to nomination for the 16th Assembly election, the respondents 7 to 15 were actually belonged to different political parties and they were not the members of either DMK or AIADMK is a known and undisputed fact and it is available in the public domain. For the sake election and in order to hoodwink the voters, the respondents 7 to 14 had claimed to be the members of Dravida Munetra kazhagam (DMK) and 15th respondent claimed to be a member of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra kazhagam (AIADMK). The DMK sponsored the respondents 7 to 14 and AIADMK sponsored the 15th respondent and this kind of alliance for a particular purpose is cheating the voters in a disguised manner. The people of Tamil Nadu are having various sentiments while exercising their franchise. Most people would have voted based on their affiliation towards their political leader. Some people would have casted their votebased on the popularity & charisma of a candidate or leader, some would have voted based on the caste, religion etc. But there were voters who had voted because of their liking towards a particular symbol which is a favorite symbol to them and close to their heart. Such people do not care about the candidate’s affiliation to other political party. The candidates who won the election by contesting in a borrowed symbolare answerable to the Public, especially to those who had voted in favour of them because the innocent voters would have believed that such candidates were members of Dravida Munetra kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munetra kazhagam (AIADMK), as the case may be. Similarly, they are also answerable to those who had voted in favour of them because they liked the particular symbol otherwise they would not have voted to them.
7) I further submit that there is a kind of fiduciary relationship created between the candidates and voters. In the 16th Assembly, out of 133 MLA’s of DMK, the respondents 7 to 14 belonged to different various political parties and they are not the members of DMK. But during the time of nomination, they gave a false affidavit stating that they belonged to DMK party but they aren’t is a fact known to all, but the 2nd respondent is aware of it butit is a silent spectator to the abuse of law. Why such kind of misrepresentation is permitted andwould these violators could be able legislators.
8) I further submit that in the floor of the Assembly, the respondents 7 to 14 were given seats by treating them as MLAs belonging to opposition parties. When the respondents 7 to 14 had contested in the DMK symbol, when they were declared as the returned candidates of DMK party, how could they be treated as MLA’s belonging opposition parties? Does it mean that the people of Tamil Nadu were taken for a ride under the guise of democracyand how would the 1st and 5th respondentsare going to correct it. If a person won the election by contesting in a symbol allotted to a recognized political party, how could such MLA assume the role of opposition, or else, they should be called as a ruling party B-wing. The mockery of democracy cannot be countenanced, it was unleashed on the people of Tamil Nadu in a disguised manner.The Role ofhealthy opposition is to have healthy discussions, sound arguments for the welfare of people and to have check and balance on implementation of policies of the Government.
9) I further submit that when the respondents 7 to 15 are the returned candidates, they won the election based on a borrowed symbol. In the Assembly, the Hon’ble Speaker of Tamil Nadu addressed them as returned candidates of unrecognized political parties by naming their respective actual political parties. Whether respondents 7 to 14 should be treated as members belonging to a different political party or DMK? Would they play the role of opposition or ruling party, would they be true to the voterswho had voted because they had declared that they belonged to DMK party, as per the affidavit, would they be true to those who had voted because they liked the symbol and I do not find any answer to these questions.
10) I further submit that whether respondents 7 to 15 are going to follow the order of Whip or obey their respective political party leader during conflict of interest between the ruling party and their respective parent political parties. During question hour, debates on bills etc., will they be in consonance with the ruling party or opposition and there is going to be a clear case of conflict of political interest.
11) I further submit that as per the website of Election Commission of India, it was stated that 8 political parties had won the 16th Assembly election. As per the press release No.55 dated 13-05-2021, it was stated that the Tamil Nadu government held a “meeting of leaders of ALL POLITICAL PARTIES of Members of Legislative Assembly” which was attended by Mr. T.R. Balu & Mr. R.S. Bharathi of DMK, Mr. D. Jayakumar & Dr. V. Paramashivam of AIADMK, Mrs. Vijayadharani& Mr. Maniratnam of INC, Mr. Nainar Nagendran & Mr. M.N. Raja of BJP, Mr. G.K.Mani of PMK, Mr. M. Bhoominathan & Mr. K. Chinnappa of MDMK, Mr. Chinthanai Selvam & Mr. S.S. Balaji of VCK, Mr. V.P. Nagaimalai& Mr. M. Chinnadurai of CPI(M), Mr. D.Rramachandran& Mr. K. Maarimuthu of CPI, Mr. Jawaharulla of MNMK-ManithaneyaMakkal Katchi, Mr. Eswaran of KMDK-KongunaduMakkal Desiya Katchi, Mr. Velumurugan of TVK-Tamizhagavazhurimaikatchi and Mr. Poovai Jeganmurthy of Puratchi Bharatam-PB. The above said ‘B’ parties had participated in the meeting held on 13-05-2021. Out of 13 political parties, 5 political parties namely, MDMK, MNMK, KMDK, TVK and PB do not have any official representation, as per the website of 2nd respondent.
12) I further submit that as per another Press Release No.81 dated 19-05-2021, it was stated that an advisory committee was set up by the Tamil Nadu government consisting of all political parties out of which 5 political parties did not send any member to the 16th legislative assembly. In the website of Election Commission of India, it was mentioned that 8 political parties alone represent the 16th legislative assembly, ipso facto how the respondent could issue a press release stating that members from 13 political parties of 16th Legislative Assembly constitute Advisory committee. The respondents 7 to 15had sworn false affidavit during their nomination. As per the Schedule III, VII-A of Constitution of India, the MLAs are bound to swear an affidavit stating that they will abide by the law established. Similarly, under VII-B of Schedule III of Constitution of India, they took oath stating that they will abide by law. The returned candidates herein still acts as a representative of original political party to which they are actually belonged to and this information is available in public domain. The official respondents herein are also aware of it and they are equally aware that the certificate issued under Form 21-C of Conduct of Election Rules,1961,is not correct with regard to actual fact about their membership in political party which sponsored them.
13) I further submit that if the Respondents 7 to 14 claim that they belong to be a member of aoriginal & actual political party they actually belonged to, they are bound to be disqualified for defection as mentioned in Para 2 of Schedule X of Constitution of India. Similarly, as per section 100 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950, the returned candidates’ election could be declared as null and void for non-compliance of law and also for any corrupt practice. In the instant case, Tamil Nadu government is very well aware that only 8 political parties won the 16th Assembly election and the remaining 5 political parties have entered the Assembly through back door only. While this is the law & fact, the press release No.55 dated 13-05-2021 and another Press Release No.81 dated 19-05-2021 recognized that the 5 other political parties who were not actually won any seat in the 16th Assembly election. If such false information is given by the government and by the State Legislature, it would amount to making of a false history. Down the line after many years,as per the information available in the public domain and from the history of Tamil Nadu legislature, the people would be under a belief that these 5 political parties namely MDMK, MMK, KMDK, TVK and PB had represented the 16th Assembly. This practice may become a bad precedent. After noticing the anomaly, I have given an representation dated 15-05-2021 to 3rd & 4threspondents to take a legal action against the erring officials for conducting a meeting by calling persons from unrecognized political parties and I have also pointed out to them about violation of laws mentioned in The Representation of People’s Act, 1950. Both received it on 24-05-2021 but till date they did not reply. The official respondents are aware that allotting time to speak in the Assembly to the unrecognized political parties which do not have representative, is a mockery of democracy. The respondents did not take any action on my representation. Hence vide letter dated 06-07-2021, I had once again sent a letter to the respondents 3& 4 and reminded to them to reply for my petition dated 15-05-2021 and it was received by them on 07-07-2021. In that letter, I reminded to them that as per G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 21.09.2015, of Personnel and Administration Department, they are bound to give a proper reply within 30 days and in the instant case, I sent a letter on 15-05-2021 but till date there is no reply probably they don’t have a reply.Similarly, I have sent letter dated 19.05.201 to the 1 & 5th Respondents herein, citing the above lapses and requested them to take necessary action, which has been duly received by them on 22.05.2021. As there was no reply, I have sent a reminder to him on 07.07.2021 in which I have referred the G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 21.09.2015, of Personnel and Administration Department, which reiterated the government guidelines, inter alia, giving proper reply to the applicant, within a period of 30 days. Even after receipt of this letter also, there was no reply from them. Since they do not have any answer to defend themselves, they deliberately avoid giving a reply to my petition. Per contra, if the respondents are allowed to invite the unrecognized political parties, not recognized by the Election Commission of India, if these political parties are permitted to find a place in the history of Tamil Nadu Legislature through back door entry, the future generation would be reading a false information as if these political parties won the 16th Assembly election. The official respondents namely 1st& 5th respondents did not take any action and did not reply to my petition hence I am obliged to file this Writ petition.
14) I further submit that the principle of fraud on legislative power is very much applicable here, the Hon’ble Speaker of Legislative Assembly as well as the Secretary have not exercised their powers as envisaged upon in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Rules and our Constitution does not permit assumption of power gained by one political party over another in the Legislative Assembly. Here, the manner in which it has been done and its effect on constitutional democracy set a bad precedent, which is against the principle of living moral fears of the legislation. My legitimate expectation relating to the procedural fairness in arriving upon such a decision in the Assembly is the bare minimum requirement and it is well settled principle that every action of the State must be informed by reasons and shall be free from arbitrariness. I have all the fundamental rights to know such implementation, as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Constitutional provisions cannot be abrogated by technical and intellectual method. It has to be done by right meaningful and just way. The ‘Expressum facit cessare tacitum’ speaks about the necessity that when there is an expressed provision in the procedure, the legislature cannot elude away from it. It is a well-known principle of logic and common sense and not nearly a technical rule of implementation. Again, the principle of Legitimate Expectation is also not fulfilled by 2nd and 5th respondents, by taking wrong decisions.
15) I further submit that after the issuance of my representation dated 19.5.2021, even the respondents 1& 5 had the chance to justify denial of my expectation by showing some over-riding public interest by way of a reply and here in this case, I have not received any reply either from 2nd or 5th respondents. Right to know is a basic fundamental right where myself as a citizen of a free country would aspire in the broader horizon, as enumerated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ, directing the Respondents 1 and 5 not to allot either separate time slot or seating arrangements during the business hours of the 16th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to the Respondents 7 to 14, under the guise of opposition political parties akin to the actual political parties, from which the they have factually contested and elected to the 16th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and consequently direct the Respondents 3 and 4 not to invite the leaders of such political parties, which do not have representation in the 16th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, for the meetings held under the caption of “Meeting of Representatives of all Legislature Parties of 16th Assembly in Tamil Nadu” and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai)
this the 12th day of Aug, 2021 ) BEFORE ME
and signed his name in my )
presence. )
ADVOCATE: CHENNAI
