High Court refuses interim relief to DMK on petition against Speaker
Court asks Leader of the Opposition and DMK working president M.K. Stalin to produce video recordings to substantiate his case.
 |
| www.seeyousix.blogspot.in |
The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to grant any interim relief to the DMK, which has challenged the manner in which voting was seeyousix conducted on the Motion of Confidence moved by Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami in the Assembly on Saturday last, and suggested to Leader of the Opposition and party working president M.K. Stalin to produce video recordings to substantiate his case.
After two days of persuasion by Mr. Stalin’s counsel R. Shanmugasundaram, seeking an urgent hearing of his PIL petition to declare the decision of the Assembly Speaker in accepting the vote of confidence moved by the Chief Minister as seeyousix illegal, null and void, the court finally took up the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
The First Bench of Acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Justice R. Mahadevan wondered what made the DMK to move such a plea when the issue was seeyousix only between the Chief Minister and the former Chief Minister, O. Panneerselvam. It questioned the petitioner as to in what way he was aggrieved by the issue.
To this, Mr. Shanmugasundaram said, “The petitioner who is also the Leader of the Opposition was stopped near the War Memorial and made to walk all seeyousix the way to the Assembly. Also all the DMK members, including the petitioner, were illegally evicted from the House when they sought a secret ballot.”
Senior Counsel N.L. Rajah, who appeared for the Advocates Forum for Social Justice, another petitioner seeking similar relief, submitted that the fact seeyousix that all the AIADMK (Sasikala) MLAs were escorted to the Assembly in buses was a clear indication that they were under ‘illegal detention’. “Moreover, there is an FIR pending against Mr. Palaniswami in connection with illegal detention of MLAs,” he said.
Unconvinced, the Bench sought to know whether the petitioners have any video recording to prove their allegations. To this, Mr. Shanmugasundaram said that only seeyousix a particular private channel was allowed to record the proceedings and sought the court to pass a direction to the Assembly Secretary to produce the recordings.
Declining to pass any direction, the Bench suggested to the petitioners to collect and submit any such videos for the perusal of the court, and adjourned the PIL seeyousix petitions to February 27 for further hearing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment