MADURAI: The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami and his four cabinet colleagues on a petition seeking their disqualification, following some ministers calling on the AIADMK general secretary Ms. V K Sasikala, now in a Bengaluru jail.
A division bench comprising Justices K K Sasidharan and G R Swaminathan had sought the response from the Chief Minister and the four ministers Dindigul Srinivasan, K A Sengottaiyan, R Kamaraj and Sellur K Raju and the secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly while hearing a writ petition filed by T Analagan, son of former AIADMK MLA late R Thamaraikani.
The petitioner contended that the four ministers had acted in violation of the Indian Constitution by discussing the government's functioning with Ms Sasikala, who was convicted in an assets case, when they met her at Parapana Agrahara jail in Bengaluru on February 28.
"After returning from the prison, the ministers made a public statement that they discussed with Ms Sasikala at prison about the functioning of the Tamil Nadu Government," said the petitioner's counsel S M Ananda Murugan.
This is a clear case of the State ministers breaching the oath of secrecy defined in article 188 of the Constitution and the stipulations made in the third schedule of the Constitution, he claimed.
The party spokesperson Gowri Sankar also said in a private TV channel debate on February 22 that the State government was being run as per Ms.
Sasikala's advice, said the counsel. However, on both occasions, Chief Minister Palaniswami did not raise any objection to it, he added.
Ms. Sasikala had become an 'extra constitutional authority', trying to run the state government through the Chief Minister, and the four ministers were acting as messengers to inform the government's decisions to her violating the oath of secrecy, the advocate alleged. Hence the petitioner also sought Mr. Palaniswami's disqualification.
As the petitioner's representation to the Tamil Nadu Governor and the Assembly secretary did not yield any positive response, he approached the court. After recording the submissions, the court issued notices to the respondents and posted the next hearing to August 21.
