- VCK leader questions appointing breakaway AIADMK legislators as ministers.
- He states party whip instructions are binding on MLAs.
- Defying whip could lead to disqualification proceedings.
- Legality alone shouldn’t override political morality and ethics.
Chennai, May 15 (PTI) VCK general secretary D Ravikumar on Friday objected to the idea of appointing the breakaway AIADMK legislators as ministers in the Vijay-led TVK cabinet and said the issue raised serious questions of political morality and ethical propriety.
He contended that Edappadi K Palaniswami, as general secretary of AIADMK, possessed authority to appoint the party Whip and the latter’s instruction was binding upon the party’s MLAs.
Consequently, the 25 MLAs who voted in favour of the government, contrary to the party’s direction, were liable to face disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, the VCK MP said on ‘X.’ “Although there may presently be no constitutional bar against appointing such MLAs as ministers, doing so would raise serious questions of political morality and ethical propriety,” he said.
His remarks come in the wake of Palaniswami’s claim that the rival AIADMK faction had supported the C Joseph Vijay-led TVJK government in its floor test due to the “lure” of minister posts, a charge denied by the rebel leaders.
The VCK with two MLAs, along with the Left parties and IUML, has extended support to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam in the government formation. During the trust vote in the Assembly on May 13, the rebel group of 25 AIADMK legislators voted in favour of the TVK government, resulting in the TVK mustering a total of 144 MLAs in the Assembly and easily crossed the mandated 118.
During the discussion on the confidence motion, Palaniswami had raised the issue of horse-trading and said it was unfair to attempt to split the legislature party.
If Chief Minister Vijay, nevertheless intended to induct them into his Mministry, the only constitutionally cleaner course would be for those MLAs to resign their seats, join the TVK formally, and seek a fresh mandate from the people through by-elections, Ravikumar said in the statement.
Ultimately, the decisive question was political rather than legal.
“Will the people accept such defections and re-elect those MLAs under a different party banner. That alone will test the legitimacy of such a political course,” the MP said.
On the 25 AIADMK MLAs who voted in favour of the TVK government, Ravikumar said whether such conduct attracted disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution was a serious constitutional question.
“But news reports further suggest that the chief minister is considering appointing some of these MLAs as ministers. Whether such appointments are legally permissible is another important issue,” the Villupuram Lok Sabha MP said.
In so far as the present case was concerned, the legal position might be examined thus. The AIADMK general secretary alone possessed the authority to appoint the party Whip. The Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed this principle in the Subhash Desai vs. State of Maharashtra judgment and categorically held that the political party and not the legislature party appoints the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House, he said.
Further, the direction to vote in a particular manner or to abstain from voting is issued by the political party and not the legislature party. Therefore, the whip issued by the AIADMK leadership was binding upon all members elected on the party ticket. Any MLA who defies such a whip is liable to face disqualification proceedings under Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule, he argued.
There was no immediate constitutional prohibition against such appointments, if the Chief Minister sought to appoint some members of the breakaway AIADMK group as ministers, Ravikumar said and cited the Supreme Court clarification that “Article 164(1-B) bars an MLA or a Member of the Legislative Council of a State (where one exists) from being appointed as a minister if they have been disqualified under Para 2 of the Tenth Schedule. The bar begins to operate only upon the Member of the legislature incurring disqualification.” Quoting the ruling he said the “Article 164(1-B) does not interdict the appointment of a member to the post of a minister if a petition for their disqualification under Para 2 of the Tenth Schedule is pending adjudication before the Speaker.” Thus, from a strictly legal standpoint, the appointment of such MLAs as ministers may be permissible until disqualification is actually incurred. “However, legality alone cannot be the sole test in matters affecting constitutional morality and democratic ethics,” the VCK general secretary said. PTI JSP JSP SA
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
