Plea against Tamil Nadu CM Edappadi Palaniswami, ministers dismissed
The CM was making his submission in his counter to the petition filed by T Analagan.
Madurai: Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami submitted before the Court that the government is being run in accordance with Constitution and not on the advice of V K Sasikala.
The CM was making his submission in his counter to the petition filed by T Analagan, son of former AIADMK MLA late R Thamarai Kani before the Madurai Bench of the Madras HC. The petition had sought the CM's disqualification for not raising an objection to his 4 cabinet ministers visiting Sasikala, who was convicted in DA case, in Bengaluru jail.
Gowri Shankar’s statement is utter falsehood,says CM
Palaniswami admitted that the ministers had met Sasikala in the jail, but denied the allegation levelled by the petitioner that the four ministers - Dindigul Srinivasan, KA Sengottaiyan, R Kamaraj and Sellur K Raju - had made a public statement that they had discussed about the functioning of the state government with Sasikala in jail.
Challenging the petitioner to prove it, Palaniswami, in his submission before the division bench said that Analagan who also belongs to AIADMK, was taking undue advantage of the present situation prevailing in the party.
The four ministers in their counters filed in the court said that they knew Sasikala for the past 25 years, and they went to enquire only about her well being.
The meeting with her was only for 15 minutes and there was no discussion about the functioning of government, said K.A. Sengottaiyan, in his counter.
On the petitioner's contention that the CM had ratified a similar statement made by the party spokesperson Gowri Shankar on a private television channel, Palaniswami said that it might be his personal opinion, and not the official view of the party.
"If at all any statement had been made by the said Gowri Shankar, those statements are not at all correct and those allegations are denied as an utter falsehood," said the CM.
On petitioner's allegation he and the four ministers breached the oath of secrecy which amounts to disqualification, Palaniswami said, "In view of the exhaustive definition of the word disqualification, both in Representation of People Act as well in X schedule of the Constitution, a Breach of Oath of Secrecy has not been mentioned as one of the disqualifications, and the petitioner has not made a case that a Breach of Oath will amount to disqualification within meaning of article 191 of Constitution of India,". The court disposed the writ petition.