Orders reserved on Puducherry nominated MLAs case

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar reserved orders on the PILs after directing the parties concerned to submit their written submission by Wednesday.

The PIL filed by Dhanalakshmi questioned the validity of the provisions, which enabled the Centre to nominate V Saminathan and KG Shankar, president and treasurer of Puducherry unit of BJP respectively and S Selvaganapathy, Correspondent of Vivekananda Matriculation School in Lawspet, as members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly.

Another PIL filed by Congress MLA and Chief Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary K Lakshminarayanan sought to stay the operation of the nomination order of Lt Governor Kiran Bedi as it has been done in contra to the prevailing norms, which mandate consultation with the council of Ministers before such nomination.

The three nominated MLAs had also approached the court challenging the order of the Assembly Speaker, which prevented them from entering the Assembly. Through a notification dated June 23, 2017, the Union Ministry for Home Affairs had appointed the three MLAs to the Assembly without consulting the incumbent government in Puducherry.

The nominees were thereafter sworn in by Lieutenant Governor Kiran Bedi on July 4. However, in a communication dated November 12, Speaker V Vaithilingam rejected the nominations, declaring the appointments as having been made by an incompetent authority against the Constitutional scheme and hence void.

Among others, Senior Advocates VT Gopalan and ARL Sunderesan made arguments on behalf of Lakshminarayanan and the assembly secretary respectively. Government

Pleader for the Puducherry Government, A Gandhiraj, also appeared.

Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan made arguments on behalf of the Central government, whereas Senior Advocates PS Raman and Arvindh Pandian made arguments on behalf of the nominated MLAs.

The arguments largely revolved around the role of the President in such appointments as well as the consultation that ought to have preceded with the council of ministers before such nomination is done.