You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

TN Assembly Secy justifies DMK MLAs' suspension in Madras HC

Press Trust of India  |  Chennai 

Justifying the en masse suspension of Opposition MLAs' from the House last August, the Assembly Secretary has submitted in the Madras High that they had acted emotionally, indulged in disorderly acts and their behaviour was a serious misconduct.

In his counter affidavit, the Assembly Secretary said the procedure followed in passing the resolution and the decision for the week-long suspension of MLAs in the House was in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Legislative Assembly Rules.



On August 17, uproarious scenes were witnessed in the assembly when MLAs were evicted and suspended en masse by Speaker P Dhanapal for a week for allegedly disrupting the proceedings.

Later, the approached the Madras High which, however, declined to stay the suspension.

When the PIL challenging the suspension of the MLAs came up for hearing, the Assembly Secretary in his affidavit said the Assembly is best suited to be judge in the matter of conduct of its proceedings.

The Legislative Assembly has all the powers and privileges and immunities enjoyed by the British House of Commons, this aspect was enshrined in our Constitution, the affidavit said.

"The members had acted emotionally and indulged in disorderly acts inside the Assembly as if they are not answerable to anyone or subject to any orderliness," the official submitted.

Noting that the House has power to suspend a member under Article 194 of the Constitution, the affidavit said the petition of the deserves to be dismissed.

The behaviour of members was a serious misconduct violating the privilege, dignity and decorum of the house and also amounts to contempt of the House and further added that the members were not suspended for the entire session but only one week.

Under Article 212 of the Constitution, the House has power to regulate its own proceedings and further it is the privilege of the House to conduct its internal proceedings including imposition of disciplinary measures against its members' disorderly conduct, free from interference, it was contended.
(Reopens LGM 3)

Noting that the rule 208 Clause (1) framed in pursuance to Constitution for regulating the procedure and conduct of the House the counter said the rule was in vogue for several decades and this rule was invoked by the Assembly when was in power to suspend members en masse without naming each member.

had said each member was not named in suspension.

On earlier similar occasions in 2006 and 2007 (during regime), the same procedure was followed as directed by the Speaker, it was submitted.

The affidavit further said the Speaker acted on authority vested upon him under Rule 286 of the Legislative Assembly Rules to suspend the members.

Noting that in similar situation that arose on May 26, then the House resolved to suspend all the members present -- 60 out of 61 members of AIADMK -- and at that time also the names of members who were suspended have not been mentioned in the resolution or in the orders of Speaker.

Rule 121 of the Assembly rules which was challenged by the petitioners clearly states a member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the House paves the way for the suspension of the members the counter affidavit said.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

TN Assembly Secy justifies DMK MLAs' suspension in Madras HC

Justifying the en masse suspension of Opposition DMK MLAs' from the Tamil Nadu House last August, the Assembly Secretary has submitted in the Madras High Court that they had acted emotionally, indulged in disorderly acts and their behaviour was a serious misconduct. In his counter affidavit, the Assembly Secretary said the procedure followed in passing the resolution and the decision for the week-long suspension of DMK MLAs in the House was in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. On August 17, uproarious scenes were witnessed in the assembly when DMK MLAs were evicted and suspended en masse by Speaker P Dhanapal for a week for allegedly disrupting the proceedings. Later, the DMK approached the Madras High Court which, however, declined to stay the suspension. When the PIL challenging the suspension of the MLAs came up for hearing, the Assembly Secretary in his affidavit said the Assembly is best suited to be judge in the Justifying the en masse suspension of Opposition MLAs' from the House last August, the Assembly Secretary has submitted in the Madras High that they had acted emotionally, indulged in disorderly acts and their behaviour was a serious misconduct.

In his counter affidavit, the Assembly Secretary said the procedure followed in passing the resolution and the decision for the week-long suspension of MLAs in the House was in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Legislative Assembly Rules.

On August 17, uproarious scenes were witnessed in the assembly when MLAs were evicted and suspended en masse by Speaker P Dhanapal for a week for allegedly disrupting the proceedings.

Later, the approached the Madras High which, however, declined to stay the suspension.

When the PIL challenging the suspension of the MLAs came up for hearing, the Assembly Secretary in his affidavit said the Assembly is best suited to be judge in the matter of conduct of its proceedings.

The Legislative Assembly has all the powers and privileges and immunities enjoyed by the British House of Commons, this aspect was enshrined in our Constitution, the affidavit said.

"The members had acted emotionally and indulged in disorderly acts inside the Assembly as if they are not answerable to anyone or subject to any orderliness," the official submitted.

Noting that the House has power to suspend a member under Article 194 of the Constitution, the affidavit said the petition of the deserves to be dismissed.

The behaviour of members was a serious misconduct violating the privilege, dignity and decorum of the house and also amounts to contempt of the House and further added that the members were not suspended for the entire session but only one week.

Under Article 212 of the Constitution, the House has power to regulate its own proceedings and further it is the privilege of the House to conduct its internal proceedings including imposition of disciplinary measures against its members' disorderly conduct, free from interference, it was contended.
(Reopens LGM 3)

Noting that the rule 208 Clause (1) framed in pursuance to Constitution for regulating the procedure and conduct of the House the counter said the rule was in vogue for several decades and this rule was invoked by the Assembly when was in power to suspend members en masse without naming each member.

had said each member was not named in suspension.

On earlier similar occasions in 2006 and 2007 (during regime), the same procedure was followed as directed by the Speaker, it was submitted.

The affidavit further said the Speaker acted on authority vested upon him under Rule 286 of the Legislative Assembly Rules to suspend the members.

Noting that in similar situation that arose on May 26, then the House resolved to suspend all the members present -- 60 out of 61 members of AIADMK -- and at that time also the names of members who were suspended have not been mentioned in the resolution or in the orders of Speaker.

Rule 121 of the Assembly rules which was challenged by the petitioners clearly states a member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the House paves the way for the suspension of the members the counter affidavit said.
image
Business Standard
177 22

TN Assembly Secy justifies DMK MLAs' suspension in Madras HC

Justifying the en masse suspension of Opposition MLAs' from the House last August, the Assembly Secretary has submitted in the Madras High that they had acted emotionally, indulged in disorderly acts and their behaviour was a serious misconduct.

In his counter affidavit, the Assembly Secretary said the procedure followed in passing the resolution and the decision for the week-long suspension of MLAs in the House was in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Legislative Assembly Rules.

On August 17, uproarious scenes were witnessed in the assembly when MLAs were evicted and suspended en masse by Speaker P Dhanapal for a week for allegedly disrupting the proceedings.

Later, the approached the Madras High which, however, declined to stay the suspension.

When the PIL challenging the suspension of the MLAs came up for hearing, the Assembly Secretary in his affidavit said the Assembly is best suited to be judge in the matter of conduct of its proceedings.

The Legislative Assembly has all the powers and privileges and immunities enjoyed by the British House of Commons, this aspect was enshrined in our Constitution, the affidavit said.

"The members had acted emotionally and indulged in disorderly acts inside the Assembly as if they are not answerable to anyone or subject to any orderliness," the official submitted.

Noting that the House has power to suspend a member under Article 194 of the Constitution, the affidavit said the petition of the deserves to be dismissed.

The behaviour of members was a serious misconduct violating the privilege, dignity and decorum of the house and also amounts to contempt of the House and further added that the members were not suspended for the entire session but only one week.

Under Article 212 of the Constitution, the House has power to regulate its own proceedings and further it is the privilege of the House to conduct its internal proceedings including imposition of disciplinary measures against its members' disorderly conduct, free from interference, it was contended.
(Reopens LGM 3)

Noting that the rule 208 Clause (1) framed in pursuance to Constitution for regulating the procedure and conduct of the House the counter said the rule was in vogue for several decades and this rule was invoked by the Assembly when was in power to suspend members en masse without naming each member.

had said each member was not named in suspension.

On earlier similar occasions in 2006 and 2007 (during regime), the same procedure was followed as directed by the Speaker, it was submitted.

The affidavit further said the Speaker acted on authority vested upon him under Rule 286 of the Legislative Assembly Rules to suspend the members.

Noting that in similar situation that arose on May 26, then the House resolved to suspend all the members present -- 60 out of 61 members of AIADMK -- and at that time also the names of members who were suspended have not been mentioned in the resolution or in the orders of Speaker.

Rule 121 of the Assembly rules which was challenged by the petitioners clearly states a member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the House paves the way for the suspension of the members the counter affidavit said.

image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard