Tamil Nadu Drama Not Playing Out According to Dhinakaran’s Script

In May 2015, when J Jayalalithaa was acquitted by the Karnataka High Court in the Disproportionate Assets case and returned to Fort St George as chief minister, she was scouting for a safe seat to contest from and become an MLA again.The kind of political party that the AIADMK is, any MLA would have readily given up his seat for Jayalalithaa but P Vetrivel who represented RK Nagar in the Tamil Nadu Assembly was the chosen one. Vetrivel resigned as MLA for Jayalalithaa to contest from a seat in Chennai for the first time in her political career. The chief minister won the byelection by a margin of 1.5 lakh votes.Also Read: 18 AIADMK MLAs Supporting Dhinakaran Disqualified by TN SpeakerToo caught up to read? Listen to the story:18 MLAs from Dhinakaran Camp DisqualifiedFor his sacrifice, Jayalalithaa gave Vetrivel the ticket from Perambur in the 2016 Assembly elections from where he emerged victorious. That Vetrivel was an Amma bhakt was obvious in the manner in which he was at the forefront of the loyalist brigade when Jayalalithaa was hospitalised last year, conducting prayers for her well-being and recovery.Forward to September 2017 and Vetrivel finds himself without a seat in the Tamil Nadu Assembly yet again. Except that this time, it is not under a VRS – read, Voluntary Resignation Scheme – but by an action of Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal.Vetrivel is among the 18 MLAs belonging to the TTV Dhinakaran camp who has been disqualified from the membership of the House as per Schedule 10 of the Constitution (The Anti-Defection Law) and under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986.Also Read: Rs 10 Cr, Is That the Unofficial Fee for Dhinakaran Loyalists?When Does Anti-Defection Law Come Into Effect?What this means is that the strength of the 234-member House comes down to 215 (including the RK Nagar seat that is vacant after Jayalalithaa's demise). Edappadi Palaniswami now needs the support of 107 MLAs to win the floor test. He would have at least 114 on his side.The action was expected since Dhanapal had issued three notices to the rebel MLAs after the ruling party chief whip S Rajendran had sought their disqualification. Their crime was that they had met Governor Vidyasagar Rao in a group and given to him in writing that they no longer supported Palaniswami's continuance as chief minister.But then typically the Anti-Defection law comes into effect when less than one-third of the members of a legislative or parliamentary party vote against the party whip in the House.Should merely asking for a change of leadership of the legislature party invite disqualification, is a question the court will have to ponder over.There are two legal precedents to go by. In the Ravi Naik vs Union of India 1994 case, the Supreme court said : Even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership, an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs.SC Set Aside Karnataka Speaker’s Decision in 2011But the Karnataka instance of 2010 saw a different interpretation of the law. In October that year, the then Karnataka Assembly speaker KG Bopaiah disqualified 16 rebel MLAs, including 11 from the BJP, just hours before the trust vote.This brought down the strength of the 224-member Karnataka House, enabling the then chief minister BS Yeddyurappa to win the vote. However, the Supreme Court in May 2011 set aside the Speaker's decision observing that it did not meet the “twin tests of natural justice and fair play”.The Tamil Nadu and Karnataka cases are similar in another respect. There too, the BJP legislators had said they were not rebelling against the party and would support a BJP government headed by anyone but Yeddyurappa. That is precisely the nuance the Dhinakaran camp has articulated in Tamil Nadu. The rebels do not want the AIADMK government to fall but only EPS – and along with him, O Panneerselvam – to be shown the door and replaced by another senior leader as CM.With this decision, it is clear the EPS-OPS camp has decided to take the bull by its horns. The immediate priority is to win the floor test that could take place any time after 20 September.EPS-OPS Camp Hopes to Win From Split in VoteBut the Dhinakaran camp's strategy is to ensure the court verdict on the disqualification is delivered before the trust vote. Which is why within minutes of being disqualified, the 18 lawmakers decided to go to the Madras High court. The plan will be to at least get a stay on a trust vote. The ruling faction also wants to go in for bypolls in the 18 constituencies to purge the Dhinakaran influence completely. It is a gamble because the DMK would fancy its chances of winning many of those seats. However, the thinking in the EPS-OPS camp is that it could stand to gain by a split in the anti-ruling AIADMK vote between the DMK and Dhinakaran. Even if it wins a few of the 18 seats plus RK Nagar constituency, it will add much-needed cushion to its strength in the Assembly.The Tamil Nadu drama is not playing out according to script for Dhinakaran. If the move to remove Sasikala as general secretary was a decisive blow, the disqualification has further pushed the Mannargudi family out of the AIADMK.What does this mean for Tamil Nadu? With both camps focused on political manoeuvring to outwit the other, governance in Tamil Nadu, it would seem, is playing the Blue Whale challenge.Also Read: With Less than 3% Vote Share in TN, BJP is Commanding AIADMK(The writer is a senior journalist. He can be reached at @Iamtssudhir. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own.The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

BECOME A MEMBER

Tamil Nadu Drama Not Playing Out According to Dhinakaran’s Script

Disqualification of 18 MLAs belonging to Sasikala camp will make comeback of the Mannargudi family more difficult.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: J Jayalalitha TTV Dhinakaran E Palaniswami