Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following judgments.

i AIR 1973 Madras 371 (K.A. Mathialagan v. P. Srinivasan and others)  Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court:

11. At this stage it is convenient to refer particularly to the incidents which happened on 2-12.72, inside the House. No doubt, the version of the petitioner is totally denied by the respondents. The petitioner concedes that he received the message from the Governor required by Art.175(2), which included item 8 therein. We have also expressed our opinion that under item 8 the notice of motion, of which notice was issued on 16.11.1972, was in order and could be taken up for discussion on the resummoned day. After the question hour was over, according to the petitioner, the five notices of no confidence motion against the Ministry given notice of on that day under Rule 55 by Thiru M.G. Ramachandran, Thiru. K.T.K. Thangamani, Smt. T.N. Ananthanayaki, Dr. hande and Mr. James were sought to be moved. He took up that motion, and, according to him, he secured the necessary leave of the House and consequent thereto he allowed Thiru M.G. Ramachandran to speak on it. But he concedes that there was shouting inside the House and in spite of his attempt to call the House to order there was confusion. The petitioner's case is that it was in this state of affairs the notice of motion of Thiru N. Veerasami, of which notice was given on 16.11.1972 was moved and the members insisted that that motion should be taken up first. The petitioner concedes that as the said motion involved the consideration of a resolution for the removal of the speaker, the Leader of the House wanted the Deputy Speaker to occupy the chair as eo instanti when the resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under consideration, a deemed vacancy is said to arise within the meaning of Clauses (1) and (2) of Art.180 of the Constitution.

12. Countering these facts the Leader of the House, Thiru V.R. Nedunchezhian, would say that on 2-12-1972, 183 members belonging to different political parties expressed that the Speaker had already lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly and it was in that atmosphere the Assembly met after being summoned by the Governor. He made an attempt to dispense with the question hour, but he was not successful. Immediately after the question hour was over, according to the third respondent, Thiru N. Veerasami stood up and wanted that the removal notice given by him and others must be taken into consideration and given preference. He supported the mover having regard to the saturated atmosphere in the Assembly which was against the Speaker continuing in office. As the resolution for the removal of the Speaker was taken up for consideration, the moment it was moved by Thiru N. Veerasami, the third respondent moved that the Deputy Speaker should preside over the House. The House agreed and it was only thereafter that the Deputy Speaker occupied the Chair. Rule 53 was thereafter dispensed with by invoking R.244 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rules. The leave of the House was secured to take up the resolution to remove the Speaker and after some speeches by the members and when the petitioner did not express his anxiety to participate in the discussion or speak against it, the Deputy Speaker put the motion to vote and it was carried by a large majority. The third respondent therefore says that the resolution of Thiru N. Veerasami was moved immediately after the question hour and the no confidence motion against the Ministry which the Speaker allowed Thiru M.G. Ramachandran to move and speak on cannot be one of the subjects, which could be discussed at all on that date as it ran contra to the catalogued items in the message. It is claimed that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings conducted by the Deputy Speaker nor did he desire to speak or vote on the motion for his removal. The third respondent is emphatic that no sooner the motion of no confidence against the Speaker was tabled in the House, the Speaker had no right to occupy the Chair or strike the bell and thereby disturb the proceedings of the House. The bell was removed since he had no authority to strike it. The resolution to remove him was validly moved and passed. There was no necessity for the Business Advisory Committee to meet and fix a date for the resolution as item 8 of the message of the Governor itself included the resolution for the removal of the Speaker within its pale and the motion of Thiru N. Veerasami became a valid discussable motion on the floor of the house on 2-12.1972.

A vacancy in the office of the speaker is created by Thiru N. Veerasami's rising after question hour and moving the resolution for removal of the Speaker. There was no occasion or necessity for him to fix up a date for the discussion of the resolution for his removal from office. The date has already been fixed by himself giving assent to item 8 of the agenda which included one such resolution of which valid notice was given on 16.11.1972. In our view, it was not even necessary for the Leader of the House to seek for a dispensation of Rule 53 by invoking Rule 244. Apparently the Leader of the House by way of abundant caution sought for its dispensation. That by itself would not make any difference in the eye of law or in the wake of the constitutional provisions. The undeniable fact is that there was a resolution for the removal of the Speaker which could be validly taken up for consideration on 2-12.1972, and it was this which was sought to be done immediately after the question hour. The petitioner, for reasons better known to himself, did not allow such a motion. Under Art.181(1), if at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly while, any resolution for the removal of the Speaker from this office is under consideration, the Speaker shall not, though he is present, preside. In such contingency, the provisions of Art.180(2) shall apply in relation to every such sitting as if the Speaker is absent.

It is in those circumstances that the deemed vacancy was appreciated by the House and the Leader of the House in consequence thereof sought the leave of the House through the Deputy Speaker for the latter to occupy the chair and conduct the proceedings thereafter. We are of the opinion that the attitude of the petitioner in not having allowed the resolution of Thiru N. Veerasami and others to be moved when it was sought to be moved was not in order and it was repugnant to the Constitution and its duly set norms. His attempt to continue to occupy the Chair when a resolution for his removal was under consideration is yet again a constitutional violation. The expression 'for the removal of the Speaker' has to be given its full significance. The resolution for the removal of a Speaker is undoubtedly elastic in its content and somewhat different from a resolution to remove a Speaker. A resolution for the removal of the Speaker becomes operative when a notice of motion for the removal of the Speaker is given and is taken up for consideration. Eo instanti when such a resolution comes up for consideration there is deemed vacancy under the provisions of the Constitution and the Speaker even though he is physically present is said to be constitutionally absent and cannot therefore be the Presiding Officer of the Assembly from that moment.