The Tamil Nadu Assembly on Wednesday witnessed noisy scenes after the AIADMK argued with Speaker M Appavu over its nominee R B Udhayakumar yet to be named as the main opposition’s Deputy floor leader and expelled leader O Panneerselvam occupying the seat earmarked for that position.
The debate ended with eviction of AIADMK MLAs, even as Appavu decried the opposition legislators using the House for their “intra-party issues.” Panneerselvam (OPS) said party matters like expulsion were still pending in the court and objected to discussion of connected issues in the House.
Leader of Opposition (LoP) Edappadi K Palaniswami, citing court rulings on the expulsion of OPS and others (without naming them explicitly), said his party has been requesting Appavu to allot Udhayakumar the seat meant for the post of deputy leader.
After the AIADMK lost power following the 2021 Assembly election, it had nominated OPS for the position of deputy leader and Palaniswami for the office of the LoP.
Following OPS’s ouster from the AIADMK in 2022, it had named Udhayakumar and the matter is under the Speaker’s consideration. Some matters related to Panneerselvam’s expulsion are pending before the Madras HC.
The LoP said his party had given Appavu letters about 10 times requesting action on new seating arrangement, besides lowering AIADMK’s strength in the House after taking into account expelled legislators. The party has 66 MLAs in the 234-member House.
Three OPS loyalists including Paul Manoj Pandian were dismissed last year by the AIADMK besides Panneerselvam.
Palaniswami wondered why the Speaker was not acting on his party’s “fair representation.” It is only a House tradition to officially name a deputy floor leader for a party.
The AIADMK had also submitted a copy of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court’s judgment upholding the ouster of MLAs from the OPS camp. This is yet to be officially taken into account, he said.
The seat of the deputy leader is beside the LoP in the front bench facing the Chief Minister. Presently, Panneerselvam is seated there.
Appavu said he did not deny that AIADMK named Udhayakumar as its deputy leader. Only the post of LoP is official and other posts are a matter of tradition. As regards seating arrangement, he is functioning as per laws and House rules and the AIADMK’s representation would be considered. The House is being run as per rules and without taking away anyone’s rights.
During the AIADMK regime, when a request was made by the DMK to make some changes to seating arrangement to facilitate late leader M Karunanidhi’s visit to the House it was then ruled existing arrangements were sufficient.
Also, the seating arrangement was the prerogative of the Speaker.
He would regard an MLA as representing the party on the symbol of which he was elected to the House. In case of defection, the Speaker said he would not hesitate to act as per the Constitution’s 10th Schedule unlike the previous AIADMK regime when OPS and 10 others were not disqualified.
EPS said the seating arrangement for MLAs is the Speaker’s prerogative but the seat of the deputy floor leader is next to that of the LoP and that is the House tradition. The Congress has 18 MLAs and the seating for that party reflects this and “why are you denying this to us?” The HC itself has validated the expulsion of three MLAs, he said.
At this stage, Paul Manoj Pandian, an OPS loyalist tried to say something which was not audible in the din and as the latter too stood up, Appavu asked them to resume their seats as Palaniswami was speaking.
EPS again demanded the expulsions be taken into account and AIADMK’s strength in Assembly be reduced accordingly as the House should not be seen taking a contradictory stand to the court’s verdict.
All AIADMK MLAs, besides OPS supporters, were on their feet and the Speaker requested them again to be seated. Palaniswami asked how could they be more patient after repeatedly making their request to act on the demands.
“When will you give” (seat for Udhayakumar) EPS asked and added the government’s tenure would last only for two years and three months more.
Following the end of the DMK’s regime tenure, the AIADMK would be in the treasury benches and the current ruling party would be in opposition. “Only this is going to happen,” he said.
He repeated that the tradition should not be changed though there could be regime change.
The opposition MLAs were on their feet and raised slogans and some were in front of Appavu’s podium. The Speaker said they had come to the House to create trouble and told them to discuss intra-party issues outside the Assembly.
He warned them of action and requested them to resume their seats.
It was not him who made OPS sit beside the LoP, but the AIADMK.
Since the slogan shouting did not cease, the Speaker ordered the marshals to evict the opposition MLAs.
After their eviction, AIADMK MLAs led by Palaniswami raised slogans and marched towards the entrance gate of the House. They shouted slogans like “Save Democracy.” Appavu said the opposition MLAs had come to the House for three days to create confusion and they wanted their party issues to be resolved by the House. The House has never interfered in intra-party affairs would never do so.
Legislators, including former CMs (EPS and OPS) had already been allotted seats and if needed, it would be changed by him.
He also wondered what would be the status of seating arrangement in case the rivals, OPS and EPS join hands and asserted again that he could only go by the rule book.
Leader of the House and Water Resources Minister Duraimurugan said the opposition MLAs had come with a “pre-plan” and Appavu gave them ample time.
The Speaker said AIADMK MLAs were evicted as they disrupted the House proceedings and warned of action if such behaviour was repeated.
Panneerselvam said it was regrettable that issues that mattered within a political party were allowed to be discussed in the House. The related case was pending before the Supreme Court, he said and requested EPS’ remarks be expunged. He said the matter was yet to attain finality in the court of law. He wanted to know if it was fair to debate the issue when he, a party to the case, was seated next to Palaniswami.
Comments
0 comment