Tamil Nadu state Congress chief bats for speedy delivery of judgment in 18 MLA disqualification case

Tamil Nadu Congress President Su. Thirunavukkarasar expressed hope that the Madas High Court will expedite the judgment in the case against disqualification of 18 lawmakers-loyal to VK Sasikala's nephew TTV Dhinakaran-who registered their withdrawal of support to the current chief minister Edappadi K Palaniswami.

While there is speculation that the judgment could be out around mid-October, the voicing out of the need for the judgment has arrived from the state Congress leader: "There are close to 40 lakh people in Tamil Nadu without a representative in the Assembly. At least for that, we need this judgment to be out," he told reporters after meeting Mk Stalin at his residence.

Palaniswami, a longtime lawmaker from Erode district's Edappadi constituency, was instated in the chief minister's post before her imprisonment by Vk Sasikala in February last year. After Palaniswami had allowed rebel AIADMK O Panneerselvam to have his faction merged with the AIADMK, TTV Dhinkaran had his loyalist lawmakers send letters to Governor Vidyasagar Rao withdrawing support to Palaniswami. As a consequence, the state Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal disqualified the legislators on grounds of violation of anti-defection rules in September 2017.


For a little over a year now, the Dhinakaran faction has battled on the sidelines, waging a legal battle that resulted in a split verdict from the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court-appointed third judge M Sathyanarayanan reserved his judgment on September 1 this year after 12 days of hearing. Essentially, the internal challenges in the AIADMK has led to absence of representative legislators in 18 constituencies in Tamil Nadu.

Raja Senthoor Pandian N, counsellor for VK Saiskala, told ET that "new facets of the case have been heard and adressed in the hearings done by the third judge."

The case in the conflicting verdicts of the Madras High Court judges Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and justice M Sundar were about whether or not the actions of the Speaker in disqualifying the lawmakers warrants an intervention by the courts.