<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Tamil Nadu's Advocate General why there was inaction and unnecessary delay in deciding disqualification petitions filed against Deputy Chief Minister O Paneerselvan and 10 other AIADMK MLAs for defying the whip and voting against the E K Palaniswami government in the February trust vote.</p>.<p>The top court asked the law officer to tell when the Assembly Speaker will decide the matter.</p>.<p>“The Speaker should have decided the matter. Notice should have been issued. There is no reason for not to decide it. It is inaction. Delay is unnecessary. Tell us what do you propose to do,” a three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde asked Advocate General Vijay Narayan, representing the Assembly Secretary.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Paneerselvam and others, contended that the plea made in the writ petition filed by DMK MLA and whip in Assembly, R Sakkrapani and others in the Madras High Court to declare the 11 AIADMK MLAs as disqualified was given up, nothing survived in the matter, which should now be closed.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the DMK leader, submitted the Speaker has not decided the matter for about three years. “As on date, no notice has been issued. The term of the Assembly would be over by May 2021,” he said.</p>.<p>Sibal cited the Supreme Court's judgement of January 21, 2020, in a petition filed by Congress MLA Keisham Meghachandra Singh from Manipur Assembly, stating that the Speaker must decide the disqualification petitions without three-month of outer limit.</p>.<p>Rohatgi, however, contended the question whether a mandamus can be issued to the Speaker has been referred to the Constitution bench but the January 21 judgement proceeded on the basis that the reference was wrong. It is not open for a three-judge to quash the reference, he said.</p>.<p>“Whether you think judgement is right or wrong does not matter. This judgement is there, it is the law,” the bench told Rohatgi.</p>.<p>“If there is inaction, there has to be a cure. Let the Advocate General tell if the judgement is not binding or not a good law,” the bench said, asking the top law officer of the state to clarify the position on February 14.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Tamil Nadu's Advocate General why there was inaction and unnecessary delay in deciding disqualification petitions filed against Deputy Chief Minister O Paneerselvan and 10 other AIADMK MLAs for defying the whip and voting against the E K Palaniswami government in the February trust vote.</p>.<p>The top court asked the law officer to tell when the Assembly Speaker will decide the matter.</p>.<p>“The Speaker should have decided the matter. Notice should have been issued. There is no reason for not to decide it. It is inaction. Delay is unnecessary. Tell us what do you propose to do,” a three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde asked Advocate General Vijay Narayan, representing the Assembly Secretary.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Paneerselvam and others, contended that the plea made in the writ petition filed by DMK MLA and whip in Assembly, R Sakkrapani and others in the Madras High Court to declare the 11 AIADMK MLAs as disqualified was given up, nothing survived in the matter, which should now be closed.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the DMK leader, submitted the Speaker has not decided the matter for about three years. “As on date, no notice has been issued. The term of the Assembly would be over by May 2021,” he said.</p>.<p>Sibal cited the Supreme Court's judgement of January 21, 2020, in a petition filed by Congress MLA Keisham Meghachandra Singh from Manipur Assembly, stating that the Speaker must decide the disqualification petitions without three-month of outer limit.</p>.<p>Rohatgi, however, contended the question whether a mandamus can be issued to the Speaker has been referred to the Constitution bench but the January 21 judgement proceeded on the basis that the reference was wrong. It is not open for a three-judge to quash the reference, he said.</p>.<p>“Whether you think judgement is right or wrong does not matter. This judgement is there, it is the law,” the bench told Rohatgi.</p>.<p>“If there is inaction, there has to be a cure. Let the Advocate General tell if the judgement is not binding or not a good law,” the bench said, asking the top law officer of the state to clarify the position on February 14.</p>
