concluded that negotiations are the proper path forward, both factions here too must arrive at a resolution through dialogue before the party suffers serious damage. By S. Muthuraj B.A., B.L., MBA., Ph.D. Former Information Commissioner Tamil Nadu Information

[13/05, 07:42] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxtn5dAX4fIungZQ6wHrzmL3OcSssMjBXb?si=-T7A1aqa7gJsWFMq
[13/05, 08:22] sekarreporter1: [13/05, 08:20] Muthuraj: If a party leader or whip issues an instruction that is contrary to the Constitution, the law, the people’s mandate, or democratic principles, a Member of the Legislative Assembly is not under any absolute obligation to obey such an instruction.
From the period when legislatures were established under the Government of India Act 1919, extensive debates were held in the Parliament of the United Kingdom regarding the powers, responsibilities, and duties of elected representatives, including the supreme importance of the people’s mandate, in India and several other countries.
Furthermore, no party leader can direct newly elected legislators to act against the democratic mandate given by the people.
Subsequent constitutional and political discussions, including those relating to the Government of India Act 1935 and the Indian Independence Act 1947, also emphasized the independent responsibility of legislators.
It was also argued in political discussions of that period that, since elections to the Constituent Assembly had already taken place before the Partition of India, the Partition itself might have been avoided if the members of the Constituent Assembly had acted independently and engaged in free deliberation instead of merely implementing the decisions of political leaders.
Likewise, during the framing of the Constitution of India, members of the Constituent Assembly and constitutional scholars emphasized in their debates that Members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly members must act with the primary objective of protecting democracy, the people’s mandate, and the Constitution.
The issue currently involving the AIADMK MLAs cannot be directly compared with any existing court judgment, because several cases relating to the internal disputes within the AIADMK are presently pending before various courts and the Election Commission. In such a situation, if the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly directs the concerned parties to obtain a clear order from either the court or the Election Commission determining who the officially recognized leader of the party is, there may not be any legal obstacle preventing both factions from functioning separately in the Assembly until such an order is obtained through legal proceedings.
According to the fundamental spirit of the Constitution of India, the primary duty of a legislator is to remain faithful to the Constitution and to the mandate of the people; loyalty to the political party comes only thereafter.
Therefore, a legislator has the right to refuse to comply with any instruction that is unconstitutional, unlawful, anti-democratic, or contrary to the will of the people.
Rather than confusing party members and the people of Tamil Nadu with repeated threats of legal battles and removal from office, both sides should realize that dialogue is the only practical solution before irreparable damage is caused to the party. Just as the United States and Iran, after prolonged confrontation and destructive conflict, have ultimately concluded that negotiations are the proper path forward, both factions here too must arrive at a resolution through dialogue before the party suffers serious damage.
By
S. Muthuraj
B.A., B.L., MBA., Ph.D.
Former Information Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Information
[13/05, 08:22] sekarreporter1: 👍🦜