6 years, 9 months ago

SC Appoints Justice Sathyanarayanan To Decide On Fate Of 18 AIADMK MLAs [Read Order]

The apex court has said that allegations made by the petitioners in the transfer petition against the judges will stand expungedThe Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed Madras High Court judge Justice M Sathyanarayanan to end the controversy that erupted after the high court delivered the June 14 split verdict on petitions challenging the disqualification of 18 dissident AIADMK MLAs. The apex court has said that allegations made by the petitioners in the transfer petition against the judges will stand expunged The Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed Madras High Court judge Justice M Sathyanarayanan to end the controversy that erupted after the high court delivered the June 14 split verdict on petitions challenging the disqualification of 18 dissident AIADMK MLAs owing allegiance to AMMK leader TTV Dhinakaran. Senior Counsel Vikas Singh had contended, “Section 151A requires seats to be filled within six months., 11 MLAs had voted against the whip.a disqualification petition was filed before the Speaker who did not even issue notice.subsequently, a writ petition was filed before the high court which was disposed off noting that question of issuance of mandamus to the Speaker has been referred to the constitution bench by this court.but here, the notice was issued on the same day and the disqualification was decided within 25 days. the judgment was reserved in January.the high court had then said that vacancies may not be filled.now after six months, a split verdict is pronounced.” “We have some reservations as to this submission.you had argued for four months before the judgment was reserved.the judge is not a computer.also there is a misstatement in the writ petition that the judgment was reserved for six months.it was reserved on January 23 and the verdict delivered on June 14.you could have simply filed the transfer petition without this hullabaloo about the period for which the judgment was reserved.you must withdraw these averments.,” observed the bench.

Live Law

Discover Related