Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It was at this stage that the leader of the House moved another motion under Rule 344 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, for the suspension of the latter part of Rule 53, namely, the circulation of the resolution of removal of the Speaker by the Secretary to all the members of the Assembly, together with an intimation about the date appointed for its discussion. It is claimed that this resolution was also carried by an overwhelming majority. Thereafter the Deputy Speaker sought the leave of the House to move the resolution for the removal of the Speaker given notice of by Thiru Veerasami and others and obtained the leave of the House of consider the same. It is said that Thiru Veerasami spoke on the resolution. After this speech it s claimed that no member stood up or requested the Deputy Speaker to permit him to speak on the motion, nor did the petitioner or any of the members of the Opposition Parties seek the leave of the Deputy Speaker to speak on the motion of Thiru Veeraswami. It was in such situation that the motion was put to vote and was carried by a voice vote. The result was that the resolution for the removal of the Speaker which was taken up for consideration and which was ultimately moved and discussed on the floor of the House as a resolution to remove the speaker was accepted by the Assembly and the Speaker is said to have been removed from his office.

3. The above sequence of events are not accepted by the petitioner. According to him, there was no valid notice of motion for his removal on the date when the Assembly met, which could be tabled for consideration by it. His case is that he allowed a no confidence motion against the Ministry, given notice of by Thiru M. G. Ramachandran and others, to be discussed, as, according to him, they sought leave under Rule 55 to move the same. As already stated, the censure motion was given notice of only on 2-12-1972. This was not one of these motions which could be taken up for consideration as it did not squarely and patently come within any one or the other of the subjects of discussion itemized by the Governor in his message. Nevertheless the petitioner allowed the belated censure motion moved by Thiru M. G. Ramachandran and is said to have obtained the leave of the House to move the same and permitted the mover to speak thereon. There was pandemonium at that stage and it was only during such a confusion that Thiru Veerasami referred to a Memorandum sent to the Speaker as having been given by 184 members and his own resolution for the removal of the Speaker and wanted that it should be given preference and that the said resolution for the removal of the Speaker should be set for consideration forthwith.

Furthering his contention it was urged that every act of the Deputy Speaker, commencing from the moment when he purported to occupy the Speaker's chair as if there was a vacancy or absenteeism for the purpose of conducting that day's proceedings, including the allowance of the resolution for the removal of the Speaker, securing the leave of the House for its consideration and ultimately securing a resolution from the House to remove the Speaker, are all in the hotchpot of illegality and therefore null and void. Thus highlighted it is said that the entire proceedings are not protected under Art. 212 of the Constitution or from judicial scrutiny by virtue of a due process taken and initiated by the aggrieved party under the normal rule of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further said that item 8 of the message sent by the Governor itemizing the subjects to be discussed on 2-12-1972 could not include the motion for removal of the Speaker and for a greater reason it could not engulf a motion which requires a date to be fixed in accordance with Chapter IX of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly rules. It is for the Speaker to control the business to be undertaken by the House and he cannot be persuaded to take up the agenda in accordance with the wish of the House, may it be at the instance of the majority members assembled in the House. According to the petitioner, there was no valid notice of motion for his removal, and even if there was one, it lapsed by efflux of time. In any event, the non-observance of the prescription in R. 53 of the Legislative Assembly Rules would amount to a violation of the intention of Art. 179(c) read with the proviso thereto. It was also said that the expression 'the then members of the Assembly' in Art. 179(c) has a special signification and that a resolution of far-seeking importance ought to have been accepted by a majority of all the members of the House whether present or not. Lastly it was said that the Speaker was not allowed to speak and take part in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly while the resolution for his removal from office was considered by it.

5. Countering these contentions Mr. M. K. Nambiyar, appearing for the contesting respondents, after tracing the powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislature and referring to the specific powers of the Governor in the matter of prorogation and summoning of the Assemblies, forcibly contended that every contention of the petitioner in so far as it has an impact on the proceedings inside the Assembly, is beyond the judicial review and Art. 212 of the Constitution places such subjects beyond the pale of questionability by any authority including a Court on the basis of any alleged irregularity of procedure therein. He would state that the office of Speaker is a creature of the Assembly and as all questions in the Assembly have to be decided by a majority and as in a democratic process the rule of majority has to prevail on any subject, and if the mandate of the House is that the Speaker was no longer acceptable to them and cannot hold the office, and as the office itself is held during the pleasure of such majority, the petitioner cannot even be said to be an aggrieved or affected person who can agitate the same under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On the merits, it was said that there was a valid resolution which could be taken up by the Assembly after being summoned at the behest of the Governor and such a valid resolution for the removal of the Speaker was considered after securing the leave of the House and on such consideration the resolution to remove the speaker was made at the instance of the majority of the members present in the Assembly that the majority of all the them members of the Assembly, referred to in Art. 179(c), obviously would refer to those members present in the Assembly when the resolution is discussed.