Shanmugasundaram, referring to violation cited in show cause notice that assembly proceedings were disturbed: The Division Bench said the conduct of the petitioners was to register protest. Read more on Division Bench ruling: https://t.co/nsT3iDLHMm

[12/2, 11:55] Sekarreporter1: [12/2, 11:54] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram, referring to violation cited in show cause notice that assembly proceedings were disturbed: The Division Bench said the conduct of the petitioners was to register protest. Read more on Division Bench ruling: https://t.co/nsT3iDLHMm https://sekarreporter.com/shanmugasundaram-referring-to-violation-cited-in-show-cause-notice-that-assembly-proceedings-were-disturbed-the-division-bench-said-the-conduct-of-the-petitioners-was-to-register-protest-read-mor/
[12/2, 11:54] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram (referring to charge that disorder was caused to assembly proceedings) observes Assembly rules state that the Speaker can adjourn the proceedings where proceedings turn disorderly.

Shanmugasundaram continues to read privilege rules applicable to MLAs.
[12/2, 12:07] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram: It is the MLA’s privilege to raise this (that banned Gutkha was being sold). The Court (Division Bench) has found that our conduct was bona fide conduct.

The substance was being liberally sold outside, and, therefore, packets were shown and photos were shown.
[12/2, 12:07] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram: The gutka ban was an eyewash ban, it was not seriously implemented. Therefore, they (DMK MLAs) agitated the issue.

Now they say, had you obtained permission, the speaker would have given.
[12/2, 12:08] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram: The gutka ban was an eyewash ban, it was not seriously implemented. Therefore, they (DMK MLAs) agitated the issue.

Now they say, had you obtained permission, the speaker would have given.
[12/2, 12:09] Sekarreporter1: [12/2, 12:07] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram: It is the MLA’s privilege to raise this (that banned Gutkha was being sold). The Court (Division Bench) has found that our conduct was bona fide conduct.

The substance was being liberally sold outside, and, therefore, packets were shown and photos were shown.
[12/2, 12:07] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram: The gutka ban was an eyewash ban, it was not seriously implemented. Therefore, they (DMK MLAs) agitated the issue.

Now they say, had you obtained permission, the speaker would have given.
[12/2, 12:08] Sekarreporter1: Shanmugasundaram: The gutka ban was an eyewash ban, it was not seriously implemented. Therefore, they (DMK MLAs) agitated the issue.

Now they say, had you obtained permission, the speaker would have given.