அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம்

அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம் (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.) என்பது தென்னிந்தியாவின், தமிழ்நாடு, புதுச்சேரி ஆகிய மாநிலங்களில் செயல்படும் ஒரு முக்கிய அரசியல் கட்சியாகும். இது தமிழகம் மற்றும் புதுச்சேரியில் முக்கிய அரசியல் கட்சியாகவும் விளங்குகிறது. தி.மு.க.விலிருந்து விலகிய பின்னர் ம. கோ. இராமச்சந்திரன் இக்கட்சியைத் தோற்றுவித்தார்.திராவிடக் கட்சிகளில் ஒன்றான அதிமுக பெரியார் -அண்ணாத்துரை ஆகியோரின் சமூக-சனநாயக, சமூக நீதிக் கொள்கைகளை அடிப்படைக் கொள்கைகளாகக் கொண்டுள்ளது.ம.கோ.இரா மறைவிற்குப் பிறகு அ.தி.மு.க. ஜெயலலிதா  தலைமையில் செயல்பட்டது. இக்கட்சியின் சார்பாக தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட்டு ம. கோ. இராமச்சந்திரன் மற்றும் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா ஆகியோர் தமிழகத்தின் முதல்வர்களாக பதவி வகித்திருக்கிறார்கள். தற்போது (2021 முதல்) சட்டமன்றத் எதிர்க்கட்சி தலைவராக, ௭டப்பாடி க.பழனிசாமியும், சட்டமன்றத் எதிர்க்கட்சி துணைத்தலைவராக ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வமும் உள்ளனர்.

 வரலாறு
சி.என். அண்ணாதுரையின் மறைவுக்குப்பின் மு. கருணாநிதி, திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகத் தலைவராகவும், தமிழ்நாட்டின் முதல்வராகவும் ஆனார். அக்காலத்தில் கட்சியின் பொருளாளராக இருந்த எம்.ஜி.ஆர்., கணக்கு கேட்டதால் கட்சியிலிருந்து நீக்கப்பட்டார். புதியக் கட்சி தொடங்க விரும்பிய எம்.ஜி.ஆர்., அப்போது அனகாபுத்தூர் இராமலிங்கம் என்பவர், ‘அ.தி.மு.க.’ என்ற பெயரில் பதிவு செய்து வைத்திருந்த கட்சியில் தம்மை இணைத்துக் கொண்டார். அப்போது, ‘ஒரு சாதாரணத் தொண்டன் தொடங்கிய கட்சியில் என்னை இணைத்துக் கொண்டேன்’ என அறிவித்ததுடன், இராமலிங்கத்துக்கு மேல்சபை உறுப்பினர் (எம்.எல்.சி.) பதவியும் அளித்தார்.http://tamil.thehindu.com/india/%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%BE-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%88-%E0%AE%8E%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9C%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%86%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A3%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%BE-%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%9A%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D/article6561928.ece?homepage=true இக்கட்சி, பின்னர், 'அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம்' (அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.) எனப் பெயர் மாற்றம் செய்யப்பட்டது.

 எம்.ஜி.ஆர். காலம்
thumb|left|தமிழக முன்னாள் முதல்வர் டாக்டர். எம்.ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன்
எம்.ஜி.ஆரால் 1972இல் தொடங்கப்பட்ட அ.தி.மு.க. தனது முதல் தேர்தலை 1973-ல் திண்டுக்கல் நாடாளுமன்ற தொகுதிக்கான இடைத்தேர்தலின்போது சந்தித்தது. இத்தேர்தலில் அ.தி.மு.க. வேட்பாளர் மிக அதிக வாக்குகள் வித்தியாசத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்றார். அதைத் தொடர்ந்து, 1977-ல் நடைபெற்ற தமிழக சட்டப்பேரவைத் தேர்தலில் இந்திய பொதுவுடமைக் கட்சி (மார்க்சியம்), அனைத்திந்திய பார்வார்டு பிளாக், இந்திய ஒன்றிய முஸ்லிம் லீக் ஆகிய கட்சிகளுடன் கூட்டணி அமைத்துப் போட்டியிட்டுப் பெரும்பாலான இடங்களில் வெற்றி கண்டது.1977 Tamil Nadu Election Results, Election Commission of India  accessed April 19, 2009 நான்குமுனைப் போட்டியில் தி.மு.க. மொத்தமிருந்த 234 இடங்களில் வெறும் 48 இடங்களை மட்டுமே பெற்றது.

எம்.ஜி.ஆர். ஒருமுறை மருத்துவமனையில் இருந்த போது, பிரசாரத்திற்கே செல்லாமல் தேர்தலில் வெற்றி பெற்றார்.

 கொடியின் வரலாறு
அ.தி.மு.க.வின் துவக்க காலக் கொடியாக, தாமரைச் சின்னமும், அதன் பின்னால் கருப்பு சிவப்பு நிறங்களும் இருந்தன.When MGR arrived in Madurai to launch ADMK  மதுரையில், ஜான்சி ராணி பூங்காவில் மகோரா அவர்களால் 1972ஆம் ஆண்டு அ.திமு.க.வின் கொடி ஏற்றப்பட்டது.

எம்.ஜி.ஆர். கட்சி ஆரம்பிக்கப் போவதாக செய்தியை அறிந்த எம்.ஜி.ஆரின் ரசிகர்கள் தாமரை படமிட்ட கொடியை கட்சிக் கொடியாக தங்கள் வீடுகளிலும், குடிசைகளிலும் ஏற்றினார்கள். அதன் பிறகு, எம்.ஜி.ஆர்., அண்ணாவின் புகைப்படங்களை ஆய்வு செய்து, அதில் சிறப்பாக இருந்த அண்ணாவின் படமொன்றினை தேர்வு செய்தார். அதில் அண்ணா ஆணையிடுவதைப் போல தோற்றமளிப்பார். இந்தப் படத்தினை, அண்ணா தோற்றுவித்த தி.மு.க.வின் கருப்பு, சிவப்பு கொடியோடு இணைத்து, அண்ணா தி.மு.க.வின் தற்போதைய கொடியமைப்பினை எம்.ஜி.ஆர். உருவாக்கினார்.

எம்.ஜி.ஆரின் வழிகாட்டுதலோடு, நடிகர் பாண்டு, அ.தி.மு.க. கொடியை உருவாக்கினார்.http://www.dinamani.com/tn-election-2016/election-news-2016/2016/05/10/அ.தி.மு.க.-கொடியை-வடிவமைத்த-நடி/article3424494.ece அ.தி.மு.க. கொடியை வடிவமைத்த பாண்டு.The man who designed the ‘Two Leaves’ symbol

 பெயர் மாற்றம்
'அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம்' என்ற பெயரை, 'அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம்' என்று எம்.ஜி.ஆர். மாற்றினார். இதை, கட்சிக்குள் சிலர் ஏற்கவில்லை என்றாலும், பின் எம்.ஜி.ஆர். 'பொதுச்செயலாளர்' பதவியை விட்டு விலகுவதாக அறிவித்த பின், எல்லோரும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார்கள்.

 எம்.ஜி.ஆரின் மறைவும் ஜெயலலிதா காலமும்
தமிழக முதல்வராக இருந்த எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன், திசம்பர் 24, 1987 அன்று மரணமடைந்தார். அவரது மறைவுக்குப் பின் யார் தலைமை தாங்குவது? என்று அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகத்தில் சர்ச்சை எழுந்தது. ஆர். எம். வீரப்பனின் ஆதரவுடன் எம்.ஜி.ஆர் மனைவி வி. என். ஜானகி, தலைவராகவும்,முதல்வராகவும் ஆனார். ஆனால் அதை கட்சியின் மற்றொரு முக்கிய பிரமுகர் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா ஏற்கவில்லை. 132 சட்ட மன்ற உறுப்பினர்கள் கொண்ட அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வில் 33 பேர் ஜெயலலிதாவை ஆதரித்தனர், மற்றவர்கள் ஜானகியை ஆதரித்தனர். எட்டாவது சட்டமன்றத்தின் பேரவைத் தலைவர் பி. எச். பாண்டியனும், ஜானகியை ஆதரித்தார்.

புதிய அரசின் மீது சனவரி 26, 1988 இல் நம்பிக்கை வாக்கெடுப்பு நடத்தப்பட்டது. தி.மு.க., இந்திரா காங்கிரசு உள்ளிட்ட எதிர்கட்சிகள் வாக்கெடுப்பைப் புறக்கணித்தன. பதவி நீக்கம் செய்யப்பட்ட ஜெயலலிதா ஆதரவு உறுப்பினர்களுக்கும், ஜானகி ஆதரவு உறுப்பினர்களுக்கும் இடையே, சட்டமன்றத்தில் சச்சரவு ஏற்பட்டது. அவைத் தலைவர், ஜெயலலிதா தரப்பு உறுப்பினர்கள் அனைவரையும் வெளியேற்றி, வெறும் 111 உறுப்பினர்களுடன், நம்பிக்கை வாக்கெடுப்பை நடத்தினார். வி.என்.ஜானகி, அதில் வெற்றி பெற்றார். ஆனால் சட்டசபையில் நடந்த கலவரம் காரணமாக,  ஜனவரி 30, 1988 ஆம் ஆண்டு ஜானகி ஆட்சியைக் கலைத்தது மத்திய அரசு.

சனவரி 21, 1989 இல் 232 தொகுதிகளுக்கு வாக்குப்பதிவு நடைபெற்றது. 69.69 % வாக்குகள் பதிவாகின. மருங்காபுரி மற்றும் மதுரை கிழக்கு ஆகிய இரு தொகுதிகளுக்கு நிருவாக காரணங்களால், தேர்தல் நடைபெறவில்லை; இருமாதங்கள் கழித்து, மார்ச்சு 11 ஆம் நாள் நடைபெற்றது. இதற்குள் அ.தி.மு.க. கட்சி ஒண்றிணைந்து விட்டதால், மீண்டும் அதற்கு “இரட்டை இலை” சின்னம் ஒதுக்கப்பட்டது. ஜெயலலிதா தலைமையிலான அக்கட்சியே, இரு தொகுதிகளிலும் வென்றது.http://www.valaitamil.com/political-tamilnadu-election-history-1989th-tamil-nadu-assembly-election-articles103-166-6599-0.html பின்பு ஜெயலலிதா தலைமையில், 1991, 2001, 2011, 2016 தேர்தல்களில் வென்று, ஜெயலலிதா தலைமையில் ஆட்சி அமைத்தது. 2014 மக்களவைத் தேர்தலையும், 2016 சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தலையும் கூட்டணி இல்லாமல் சந்தித்து வெற்றி கண்டது.

 ஜெயலலிதா மறைவு
thumb|left|தமிழக முன்னாள் முதல்வர் டாக்டர். ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா
அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச்செயலாளர் ஜெயலலிதா, முதலமைச்சராக, பதவியிலிருக்கும் போது, 5 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று காலமானார். ஜெயலலிதா மறைந்த நாளின் இரவினையடுத்து, 6 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று அதிகாலை 1 மணிவாக்கில் ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் தலைமையிலான அமைச்சரவை பதவியேற்றது. அதற்குப் பின்னர், 29 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுக்குழு உறுப்பினர்கள் ஒன்றுகூடி, அ.தி.மு.க.வின்  பொதுச் செயலாளராக வி. கே. சசிகலாவை ஒருமனதாகத் தேர்ந்தெடுத்தனர்.Chinnamma Sasikala named AIADMK General Secretaryஜெயலலிதா மறைவுக்கு பின் கூட்டப்பட்ட அவசர பொதுக்குழுவில் அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க. பொதுச்செயலாளராக சசிகலா நியமனம்

5 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின் தலைவராக சசிகலா தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார். இதனையடுத்து, ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம், முதல்வர் பதவியிலிருந்து விலகுவதற்கான கடிதத்தை ஆளுநருக்கு அனுப்பி வைத்தார். விலகல் கடிதத்தை ஏற்றுக் கொண்ட ஆளுநர், அடுத்த ஏற்பாடுகள் முடிவடையும்வரை, ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வமே முதல்வராக தொடர்வார் என்று அறிவித்தார்.

7 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று செய்தியாளர்களை சந்தித்த பொறுப்பு முதல்வர் பன்னீர்செல்வம், தன்னைக் கட்டாயப்படுத்தியதால், பதவி விலகல் கடிதத்தை தான் அளித்ததாகத் தெரிவித்தார். இதனைத் தொடர்ந்து, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொருளாளர் பதவியிலிருந்து அவர் நீக்கப்பட்டதாக, அக்கட்சியின் பொதுச்செயலாளர் வி. கே. சசிகலா அறிவித்தார். இதனால் ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம், சசிகலா என இரு அணிகளாக அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க. பிரிந்தது. ஓ.பி.எஸ். அணியில் மதுசூதனன், மாஃபா பாண்டியராஜன், பொன்னையன், செம்மலை ஆகியோர் இணைந்தனர்.  இதனால், அ.தி.மு.க.வில் இருந்து, ஓ.பிஎ.ஸ். ஆதரவாளர்கள் அனைவரையும், கட்சியின் அடிப்படை உறுப்பினர் உள்ளிட்ட அனைத்துப் பொறுப்புகளில் இருந்தும் சசிகலா நீக்கினார்.

பிறகு சசிகலா தன் ஆதரவு எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்கள் அணி மாறாமல் இருப்பதற்காக அவர்களை கூவத்தூர் சொகுசு விடுதியில் தங்க வைத்தார். தன்னிடம் போதிய ஆதரவு எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்கள் இருப்பதால், ஆட்சி அமைக்க உரிமை கோரினார் சசிகலா. ஆனால் அவர் மீது உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தல் சொத்துக்குவிப்பு வழக்கு நிலுவையில் இருந்ததால், ஆளுநர் தொடர்ந்து அமைதி காத்து வந்தார். பிறகு அந்த வழக்கில் சசிகலா குற்றவாளி என தீர்ப்பு அளிக்கப்பட்டதால், அவர் சிறை செல்ல நேர்ந்தது. அவர் சிறை செல்லும் முன்பு ஆலோசனை கூட்டம் நடத்தி, எடப்பாடி க. பழனிசாமி யை சட்டமன்றக் குழுத்தலைவராகவும், டி.டி.வி. தினகரனை, துணைப் பொதுச்செயலாளராகவும் நியமித்தார். பிறகு 124 எம்.எல்.ஏ.க்களின் ஆதரவுடன், எடப்பாடி பழனிசாமி முதல்வராகப் பதவியேற்றார்.

எடப்பாடி பழனிசாமி முதல்வராய் பதவியேற்று 6 மாதங்களில் ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் அணி மீண்டும் கட்சியில் இணைந்தது. ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம், தமிழக அரசின் துணை முதல்வராகவும், கட்சியின் ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளராகவும் ஆக்கப்பட்டார். சசிகலாவால் நீக்கப்பட்ட அனைத்து உறுப்பினர்களும் கட்சிக்குள் சேர்க்கப்பட்டனர். மேலும், பெங்களூர் சிறையிலிருந்த வி .கே. சசிகலா மற்றும் அவரின் ஆதரவாளர்கள், கட்சியின் அவசர பொதுக்குழுவால் கட்சியிலிருந்து நீக்கப்பட்டனர்.

இதன்பின் சசிகலாவிற்கு ஆதவராக, 18 அ.தி.மு.க. சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்கள், எடப்பாடி பழனிச்சாமி மீது தங்களுக்கு நம்பிக்கை இல்லை என ஆளுநரிடம் மனு அளித்தனர். இவர்களை விசாரித்து, பதவிநீக்கம் செய்யும்படி சபாநாயகருக்கு, அ.தி.மு.க. சட்டசபை கொறடா ராஜேந்திரன் பரிந்துரை செய்தார். இவர்களுள் உறுப்பினர் ஜக்கையன் மட்டும் மன்னிப்பு கடிதம் வழங்கினார், மீதமுள்ள 18 உறுப்பினர்களின் பதவிகள் சபாநாயகரால் பறிக்கப்பட்டது. இதை எதிர்த்து 18 உறுப்பினர்களின் மேல்முறையிட்டு மனுக்களும் தோல்வி அடைந்தன. மேலும் முன்னாள் முதல்வர் மு. கருணாநிதி உட்பட 4 சட்டசபை உறுப்பினர்கள் மறைவால் தமிழகத்தில் 22 தொகுதிகள் வெற்றிடமாகின. 2019 மே மாதம் பாராளுமன்ற பொதுத்தேர்தலுடன் தமிழகத்தில் 22 சட்டசபை தொகுதிகளின் இடைத் தேர்தலும் நடந்தது. அ.ம.மு.க. பொதுச்செயலாளர் டி.டி.வி. தினகரன் தலைமையில் அந்த நபர்கள் 22 இடங்களிலும் அ.தி.மு.க.வை எதிர்த்துப் போட்டியிட்டனர். ஆனால் அ.தி.மு.க. 12 இடங்களில் வெற்றிபெற்று ஆட்சியைத் தக்க வைத்தது; அமமுகவினர் அனைத்து இடங்களிலும் தோல்வி அடைந்தனர்.பின்னர், 2021 சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தலில், அதே தேசிய ஜனநாயகக் கூட்டணி மற்றும் சில சிறிய கட்சிகளின் ஆதரவுடன் அதிமுக போட்டியிட்டது, திமுகவின் 133 இடங்களுடன் ஒப்பிடும்போது 66 இடங்களை வென்றது மற்றும் திமுக தலைமையிலான ஆட்சியில் இருந்து தள்ளப்பட்டது.  மதச்சார்பற்ற முற்போக்கு கூட்டணி. தேர்தலுக்குப் பிறகு, சட்டசபையில் எதிர்க்கட்சிகளின் முக்கியக் கட்சியாக அதிமுக உருவெடுத்தது. 11 மே 2021 அன்று, கட்சியின் இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர் எடப்பாடி கே.பழனிசாமி தமிழ்நாடு சட்டமன்ற எதிர்க்கட்சித் தலைவராகவும், 14 ஜூன் 2021 அன்று கட்சியின் ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர் ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் தமிழ்நாடு சட்டமன்ற எதிர்க்கட்சித் துணைத் தலைவராகவும் அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்டனர்.
 கட்சி தலைமை
 தலைவர்கள்
 ம. கோ. இராமச்சந்திரன் (1977 - 1987)
 வி. என். சானகி இராமச்சந்திரன் (1988- 1989)

 பொதுச்செயலாளர்கள்
 ம. கோ. இராமச்சந்திரன் (1972 முதல் 1978 வரை)
 இரா. நெடுஞ்செழியன் (1978 முதல் 1980 வரை)
 ப.வ.சண்முகம் (1980 முதல் 1985 வரை)
 இரா. இராகவனந்தம் (1985 முதல் 1986 வரை)
 ம. கோ. இராமச்சந்திரன் (1986 முதல் 1987 வரை)
 இரா. நெடுஞ்செழியன் (1987 முதல் 1989 வரை)
 செ. செயலலிதா (1989 முதல் 2016 வரை
 வி.கே.சசிகலா (2016 - 12 - 29 முதல் ? வரை)

 ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர்கள்
 ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் (21 ஆகஸ்ட் 2017 முதல்)
 இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர்கள்
 எடப்பாடி க. பழனிசாமி (21 ஆகஸ்ட் 2017 முதல்)

 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க வின் வெற்றி, தோல்விகள்.
எம்.ஜி.ஆர்க்கு பின் திராவிட கட்சிகளான அஇஅதிமுகவும், திமுகவும் மாறி மாறி ஆட்சிசெய்துகொண்டு வருகின்றன.

வரிசை எண் பெயர் தொடக்கம் முடிவு முறை கட்சி 1 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 30 ஜூன், 1977 17 பிப்ரவரி, 1980 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 2 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 9 ஜூன், 1980 15 நவம்பர், 1984 2 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.கஇரா. நெடுஞ்செழியன்16 நவம்பர் 1984	9 பிப்ரவரி 1985 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 4 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 10 பிப்ரவரி, 1985 24 டிசம்பர், 1987 3 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 5 இரா. நெடுஞ்செழியன் 24 டிசம்பர், 1987 7 ஜனவரி, 1988 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 6 வி. என். ஜானகி 7 ஜனவரி, 1988 30 ஜனவரி, 1988 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க (ஜானகி அணி) 7 ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா 24 ஜூன், 1991 12 மே, 1996 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 8 ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதாOn செப்டம்பர் 21, 2001, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled in a unanimous verdict that  "a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164 (1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such". Thereby, the bench decided that "in the appointment of Ms. Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister there has been a clear infringement of a Constitutional provision and that a writ of quo warranto must issue". In effect her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect. Therefore, technically, she was not the Chief Minister in the period between மே 14, 2001 and செப்டம்பர் 21, 2001 (The Hindu — SC unseats Jayalalithaa as CM , full text of the judgment from official Supreme Court site ). 14 மே, 2001 21 செப்டம்பர், 2001 2 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 9 ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் 21 செப்டம்பர், 2001 1 மார்ச்சு, 2002 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 10 ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா 2 மார்ச்சு, 2002 12 மே, 2006 3 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 11 ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா 16 மே, 2011 27 செப்டம்பர், 2014 4 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 12 ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் 29 செப்டம்பர், 2014 22 மே, 2015 2 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 13 ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா 23 மே, 2015 22 மே, 2016 5 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 14 ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா 23 மே, 2016 5 திசம்பர், 2016 6 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 15 ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் திசம்பர் 6, 2016 பிப்ரவரி 16, 2017 3 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க16எடப்பாடி க. பழனிசாமிபிப்ரவரி 16, 20176 மே,20211அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க

 போட்டியிட்ட தேர்தல்கள்
 இந்திய பொதுத் தேர்தல்கள்

+மக்களவை தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள்  வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம்  வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1977 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன்21 182.90%5,480,3781980 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன்24 162.36% 0.54%4,674,064 எதிரணி1984 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன்12 101.69% 0.673,968,9671989 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா11 11.50% 0.194,518,649 எதிரணி1991 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா11மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை1.62% 0.124,470,5421996 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா10 110.64% 0.982,130,2861998 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா23 181.83% 1.19%6,731,5501999 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா29 81.93% 0.107,046,953 எதிரணி 2004 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா33 102.19% 0.268,547,0142009 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா23 91.67% 0.526,953,5912014 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா40 283.27% 1.60%18,111,5792019 தேர்தல்ஒபிஎஸ்-இபிஎஸ்21 361.28% 1.99%7,830,146

 மாநில சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள்
+தமிழ்நாடு சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள் வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம்  வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1977 தேர்தல் எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்200 13030.36%5,194,8761980 தேர்தல் எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்177 138.75% 8.39%7,303,0101984 தேர்தல் எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்155 337.03% 1.72%8,030,8091989 தேர்தல் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா202 10321.77% 15.26%5,247,317 எதிரணி 1991 தேர்தல் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா168 13544.39% 22.62%10,940,9661996 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா168 16021.47% 22.92%5,831,3832001 தேர்தல் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா141 12831.44% 9.97%8,815,3872006 தேர்தல் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா188 7132.64% 1.20%10,768,559 எதிரணி2011 தேர்தல் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா165 8938.40% 5.76%14,150,2892016 தேர்தல் ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா234 1440.77% 2.37%17,616,2662021 தேர்தல்ஒபிஎஸ்-இபிஎஸ்191 6933.29% 7.48%15,390,974 எதிரணி

+புதுச்சேரி சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள்  வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம்  வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1974 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்21 1227.83%60,8121977 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்27 230.96% 3.13%69,8731980 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்18 1418.60% 12.36%45,6231985 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்10 615.75% 2.85%47,5211990 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா13 318.17% 2.42%76,337 எதிரணி 1991 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா10 317.34% 0.83%67,7921996 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா10 312.53% 4.81%57,678 எதிரணி 2001 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா20மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை12.56% 0.03%59,9262006 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா18மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை16.04% 3.48%90,699 எதிரணி2011 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா10 213.75% 2.29%95,9602016 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா30 116.82% 3.07%134,597 எதிரணி 2021 தேர்தல்ஒபிஎஸ்-இபிஎஸ்5 44.14% 12.68%34,623

+கருநாடக சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள்  ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள் வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம்  வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1978 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்7மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.18%22,3101983 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்1 10.13% 0.05%16,2341989 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா1மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.18% 0.05%32,9281994 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா4மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.24% 0.06%50,696 எதிரணி1999 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா13மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.18% 0.06%39,8652004 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா2 10.07% 0.11%16,7372008 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா7மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.03% 0.04%9,0882013 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா5மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.03%மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை10,2802018 தேர்தல்ஒபிஎஸ்-இபிஎஸ்3மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.01% 0.02%2,072

+கேரள சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள்  வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம்  வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1977 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்2மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.02%2,1141980 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்1மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.00% 0.02%2242006 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா29மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.12% 0.12%19,0782011 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா4மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.01% 0.11%2,4482016 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா7மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.17% 0.16%33,4402021 தேர்தல்ஒபிஎஸ்-இபிஎஸ்1மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.05% 0.12%10,376

+ஆந்திரப் பிரதேச சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள்  வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம்  வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1978 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்9மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.19%38,6911994 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா2மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.05% 0.14%14,2511999 தேர்தல்ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா5மாற்றங்கள் இல்லை0.02% 0.03%7,281
சின்னம் முடக்கம்:அஇஅதிமுகவில் உள்ள சசிகலா, ஓ. பன்னீர்செல்வம் ஆகிய இரு அணிகளும் உரிமை கோரியதால், ராதாகிருட்டிணன் நகர் இடைத் தேர்தலில் இரட்டை இலை சின்னத்தை தேர்தல் ஆணையம் முடக்கி வைத்தது. அதேபோல், அதிமுக என்ற பெயரையும் பயன்படுத்த தடை விதித்தது. பன்னீர் செல்வம் அணிக்கு இரட்டை விளக்கு உள்ள மின்கம்ப சின்னத்தையும், சசிகலா அணிக்கு தொப்பி சின்னத்தையும் தேர்தல் ஆணையம் ஒதுக்கியது. பன்னீர் செல்வம் அணிக்கு அதிமுக புரட்சித் தலைவி அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும், சசிகலா அணிக்கு அதிமுக அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும் தேர்தல் ஆணையம் ஒதுக்கியது. பணப்பட்டுவாடா காரணத்தால் ஆர் கே. நகர் தேர்தல் நிறுத்தப்பட்டது. ஆகத்து மாதம் இறுதியில் எடப்பாடி கே. பழனிச்சாமி மற்றும் பன்னீர் செல்வம் அணிகள் இணைந்தன மற்றும் தினகரன் தனி அணியாக செயல்பட்டார். கட்சியில் பெரும்பான்மை இருந்ததால் அதிமுக கட்சி மற்றும் சின்னம் எடப்பாடி கே. பழனிச்சாமி-பன்னீர் செல்வம் அணிக்கு ஒதுக்கப்பட்டது.\

 மேற்கோள்கள்

பகுப்பு:தமிழக அரசியல் கட்சிகள்
பகுப்பு:தமிழ்நாட்டு திராவிட அமைப்புகள்
பகுப்பு:1972இல் நிறுவப்பட்ட அரசியல் கட்சிகள்
பகுப்பு:எம். ஜி. ஆர்
பகுப்பு:ஜெயலலிதா
பகுப்பு:அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம்
பகுப்பு:புதுச்சேரி அரசியல் கட்சிகள்

In the midst of the cave, M.J.A. was in the midst of the cave, and when he looked at him, he was removed from the cave.

The new state of emergency begins with M.J.A., and now it is an unknown state of emergency, “M.J.A.”

The name of the book is written in the name of the book, which is written in the name of the book.

"அக்காலத்தில்

கட்சியிலிருந்து

நீக்கப்பட்டார்

அனகாபுத்தூர்

Published : 04 Nov 2014 10:22 AM
Last Updated : 04 Nov 2014 10:22 AM
திமுகவில் இருந்து 1972-ம் ஆண்டு வெளியேற்றப்பட்ட எம்.ஜி.ஆர், ஏற்கெனவே ஒருவர் பதிவு செய்து வைத்திருந்த அதிமுகவில் இணைந்து கட்சியை தொடங்கினார். அதுபோல், காங்கிரஸுடன் இணைக்கப்பட்டாலும் மத்திய தேர்தல் ஆணையத்தில் தமிழ் மாநில காங்கிரஸ் (மூப்பனார்) பதிவு நீக்கம் செய்யப்படவில்லை. எனவே, த.மா.கா.வில் ஜி.கே.வாசன் இணைவாரா என்ற எதிர்பார்ப்பு எழுந்துள்ளது.
காங்கிரஸில் பிரிந்து புதிய கட்சி உருவாக்க இருப்பதாக அறிவித்துள்ள ஜி.கே.வாசன், மீண்டும் தமிழ் மாநில காங்கிரஸ் (த.மா.க) பெயரிலேயே கட்சியை தொடங்குவார் என பெரிதும் எதிர்பார்க்கப்படுகிறது. அவரின் தந்தையான மூப்பனார், 1996-ல் த.மா.கா-வை தொடங்கினார்.
மூப்பனார் பதிவு செய்த வைத்த அரசியல் கட்சியின் பெயர் ‘தமிழ் மாநில காங்கிரஸ்(மூப்பனார்)’ என்பது தான். எனினும் அவர் இதில் மூப்பனாரை எடுத்து விட்டு வெறும் ‘தமிழ் மாநில காங்கிரஸ்’ என்ற பெயரிலேயே பிரச்சாரம் செய்து வந்தார். அவர், காங்கிரஸுடன் இணைந்த பின் த.மா.கா கலைக்கப்பட்டதாக கருதப்பட்டது. ஆனால், அதில் இருந்த சில நிர்வாகிகள் அக்கட்சியின் பெயரை கலைக்காமல் இன்னும் அதை பதிவு நிலையில் வைத்துள்ளனர்.
இது குறித்து ‘தி இந்து’விடம் மத்திய தேர்தல் ஆணைய வட்டாரங்கள் கூறியதாவது: காங்கிரஸுடன் இணைந்த பின்பு மூப்பனார் த.மா.கா.வை கலைத்து விட்டதாக தேர்தல் ஆணையத்திடம் கடிதம் அளித்தார். ஆனால், அதில் இருந்த புதுச்சேரியை சேர்ந்த ஒருசில நிர்வாகிகள், அதைக் கலைக்க விரும்பாமல் தாம் நடத்த விரும்புவதாகக் கூறி, அக்கட்சியின் பதிவை வைத்துக் கொண்டனர். எனவே, வாசன் அதே பெயரில் கட்சி தொடங்க விரும்பினால், ஏற்கெனவே பதிவாகி உள்ள த.மா.கா(மூப்பனார்) என்ற பெயரிலான கட்சியில் இணைந்து நடத்த வேண்டும். இல்லை எனில் அவர், வேறு பெயரில் புதியதாக ஒன்று பதிவு செய்ய வேண்டும்.’ எனத் தெரிவித்தனர்.
சைக்கிள் சின்னம் இல்லை
த.மா.கா(மூப்பனார்) எனும் பெயரிலான கட்சி தற்போது, புது நகர், கானுபேட் வில்லியனூர், புதுச்சேரி என்ற விலாசத்தில் இருப்பதாக, மத்திய தேர்தல் ஆணையப் பதிவேட்டில் குறிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக தகவல் கிடைத்துள்ளது. அக்கட்சியின் நிர்வாகிகளிடம் பேசி அதை வசப்படுத்தினாலும் வாசன் தரப்புக்கு, சைக்கிள் சின்னம் மீண்டும் கிடைக்காது எனவும் தேர்தல் ஆணைய வட்டாரம் கூறுகிறது.
இது குறித்து அவர்கள் கூறும்போது, ‘முலாயம் சிங்கின் சமாஜ்வாதி கட்சிக்கு சைக்கிள் சின்னம் ஒதுக்கப்பட்டு உள்ளது. குறிப்பிட்ட வாக்கு சதவிகிதம் மற்றும் தொகுதிகள் பெற்றதால் தேசிய கட்சியாக நிலை பெற்று விட்டது. தேசிய கட்சிகளாகி விட்ட அரசியல் கட்சிகளின் சின்னங்களை இந்தியாவின் வேறு எந்த மாநிலங்களில் உள்ள கட்சிகளுக்கும் ஒதுக்க முடியாது. இதற்காக, 1998-ம் ஆண்டு தேர்தல் ஆணையத்தில் புதிதாக சட்டத்திருத்தங்கள் செய்யப்பட்டு விட்டன. எனவே, த.மா.கா(மூப்பனார்) கட்சிக்கு மீண்டும் சைக்கிள் சின்னம் கிடைக்காது.’ என்றனர்.
அதிமுகவும் எம்ஜிஆரும்
புதிய கட்சி தொடங்க விரும்பிய எம்.ஜி.ஆர் அப்போது அனகாபுத்தூர் ராமலிங்கம் என்பவர், ‘அதிமுக’ என்ற பெயரில் பதிவு செய்து வைத்திருந்த கட்சியில் தம்மை இணைத்துக் கொண்டார். அப்போது, ‘ஒரு சாதாரணத் தொண்டன் தொடங்கிய கட்சியில் என்னை இணைத்துக் கொண்டேன்’ என அறிவித்ததுடன் ராமலிங்கத்துக்கு மேல்சபை உறுப்பினர் (எம்.எல்.சி.) பதவியும் அளித்தார். இதேபோன்ற சூழல், தற்போது வாசனுக்கும் உருவாகலாம் என எதிர்பார்க்கப்படுகிறது.
Sign up to receive our newsletter in your inbox every day!

Question: who was in the cave when the book came out

In the midst of the cave, M.J.A. was in the midst of the cave, and when he looked at him, he was removed from the cave.

The new state of emergency begins with M.J.A., and now it is an unknown state of emergency, “M.J.A.”

The name of the book is written in the name of the book, which is written in the name of the book.

who was in the cave when the book came out

Question: who was in the cave when he looked at him

who was in the cave when அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம் looked at him

Question: where did m.j.a. get out of the cave

Question: what is the name of mj a in the book

Question: what happened to m.j.a when he looked at him

கட்சியிலிருந்து நீக்கப்பட்டார்

what happened to m.j.a when அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம் looked at him

Question: where does the name of the book come from

where does the name of the book come from

In the midst of the cave , M.J.A. was in the midst of the cave , and when he looked at him , he was removed from the cave .

The new state of emergency begins with M.J.A. , and now it is an unknown state of emergency , “ M.J.A. ”

The name of the book is written in the name of the book , which is written in the name of the book .

அக்காலத்தில் கட்சியின் பொருளாளராக இருந்த எம்.ஜி.ஆர்., கணக்கு கேட்டதால் கட்சியிலிருந்து நீக்கப்பட்டார்.

புதியக் கட்சி தொடங்க விரும்பிய எம்.ஜி.ஆர்., அப்போது அனகாபுத்தூர் இராமலிங்கம் என்பவர், ‘அ.தி.மு.க.’

என்ற பெயரில் பதிவு செய்து வைத்திருந்த கட்சியில் தம்மை இணைத்துக் கொண்டார்.

In the midst of the cave, M.J.A. was in the midst of the cave, and when he looked at him, he was removed from the cave. The new state of emergency begins with M.J.A., and now it is an unknown state of emergency, “M.J.A.” The name of the book is written in the name of the book, which is written in the name of the book.

In the midst of the cave, M.J.A. was in the midst of the cave, and when he looked at him, he was removed from the cave.

The new state of emergency begins with M.J.A., and now it is an unknown state of emergency, “M.J.A.”

The name of the book is written in the name of the book, which is written in the name of the book.

by J.A.

During the war, the first Dr. M. G. Armstrong M. G. Orle started in 1972 by the U. M. G. G.

His first election was in 1973 when he met at the edition of the National Assembly. In the edition, the U.S.A. judge won in the highest number of votes.

இராமச்சந்திரன்

எம்.ஜி.ஆரால்

தொடங்கப்பட்ட

இடைத்தேர்தலின்போது

இத்தேர்தலில்

வித்தியாசத்தில்

Question: in what year did the first dr. m. g. orle election take place

by J.A.

During the war, the first Dr. M. G. Armstrong M. G. Orle started in 1972 by the U. M. G. G.

His first election was in 1973 when he met at the edition of the National Assembly. In the edition, the U.S.A. judge won in the highest number of votes.

in what year did the first dr. m. g. orle election take place

Question: when did dr. mg. armstrong start

by J.A.

Question: where did dr. m. g. armstrong meet in 1973

by J.A.

where did dr. m. g. armstrong meet in 1973

Question: who won the election in 1973

by J.A.

Question: who was the first u.m.g. g. judge

டாக்டர் . எம்.ஜி . இராமச்சந்திரன் எம்.ஜி.ஆரால்

by J.A.

Question: what position does the u.s.a. hold

by J.A.

Question: where did dr. m. g. orle meet in 1973

by J.A.

During the war , the first Dr. M. G. Armstrong M. G. Orle started in 1972 by the U. M. G. G.

His first election was in 1973 when he met at the edition of the National Assembly . In the edition , the U.S.A. judge won in the highest number of votes .

எம்.ஜி.ஆர். காலம் தமிழக முன்னாள் முதல்வர் டாக்டர். எம்.ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் எம்.ஜி.ஆரால் 1972இல் தொடங்கப்பட்ட அ.தி.மு.க. தனது முதல் தேர்தலை 1973-ல் திண்டுக்கல் நாடாளுமன்ற தொகுதிக்கான இடைத்தேர்தலின்போது சந்தித்தது. இத்தேர்தலில் அ.தி.மு.க. வேட்பாளர் மிக அதிக வாக்குகள் வித்தியாசத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்றார்.

காலம் தமிழக முன்னாள் முதல்வர் டாக்டர். எம்.ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் எம்.ஜி.ஆரால் 1972இல் தொடங்கப்பட்ட அ.தி.மு.க.

தனது முதல் தேர்தலை 1973-ல் திண்டுக்கல் நாடாளுமன்ற தொகுதிக்கான இடைத்தேர்தலின்போது சந்தித்தது. இத்தேர்தலில் அ.தி.மு.க. வேட்பாளர் மிக அதிக வாக்குகள் வித்தியாசத்தில் வெற்றி பெற்றார்.

by J.A. During the war, the first Dr. M. G. Armstrong M. G. Orle started in 1972 by the U. M. G. G. His first election was in 1973 when he met at the edition of the National Assembly. In the edition, the U.S.A. judge won in the highest number of votes.

During the war, the first Dr. M. G. Armstrong M. G. Orle started in 1972 by the U. M. G. G.

His first election was in 1973 when he met at the edition of the National Assembly. In the edition, the U.S.A. judge won in the highest number of votes.

A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S. A.S

MADURAI: As cadres of AIADMK observed with fervour its founding day across Tamil Nadu on Saturday, senior leaders sifted through the past to narrate the highpoints of the party’s four-decade-old history. The AIADMK was founded by celluloid icon M G Ramachandran at the peak of his popularity, on October 17, 1972.
The historical event, which ushered in a dramatic change in the state’s political profile, began with MGR arriving by the ‘Pandian Express’ from Chennai to Madurai. The train reached Dindigul on time, but it took 10 hours for it to reach Madurai as MGR was mobbed by ecstatic fans en route. It takes less than an hour to reach Madurai from Dindigul by train. MGR, who had joined the DMK, then headed by C N Annadurai, in 1953, was expelled from the party in 1972. Shortly after his expulsion, MGR floated the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which later came to be known as All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
Though Chennai was the headquarters, MGR preferred Madurai as the party’s political focal point. When he was in the DMK, the party’s then strongman in the temple city S Muthu presented him with a ‘Veeraval (sword) for the successful run of Tamil film ‘Nadodi Mannan’. Muthu later teamed up with MGR after he floated the ADMK. Recalled former Madurai district secretary M S Pandiyan, “The first AIADMK flag (which is now red and black with the image of Annadurai) that was hoisted near the Jhansi Rani Park in Madurai in 1972 had the image of a white lotus against a black and red backdrop.”
“When we tried to organise a public meeting in Madurai city soon after the party’s launch, no permission was given. Within two days, however, a meeting was arranged behind Tiruparankundram hills in the district. About 1.5 lakh people attended the meeting which MGR addressed and it was a stupendous success,” said Patturajan. Madurai’s urban and rural areas had 3.5 lakh AIADMK members then, co-operation minister Sellur K Raju said.
As the DMK was in power then, AIADMK supporters were ‘harassed’ and more than 3,000 of them arrested, said advocate and former Madurai mayor M Patturajan. He was one of the advocates, who helped obtain their release on bail, without charging fees.
Recalling the party’s first Madurai unit election, Madurai north MLA A K Bose said, “Former speaker Sedapatti R Muthiah took on Vadipatti Balaguru in the election. MGR was keen on Balaguru. But, he secured lesser votes than Muthiah.” Then election agent Jeppiar, who is the current chancellor of Sathyabama University, took the ballot box to Chennai as per MGR’s instruction. MGR’s disappointment was palpable, said Bose. A few months later, Muthiah was announced as district secretary by the party’s then mouth piece ‘Thennagam’.
Raju recalled how the first symptoms of MGR’s illness became apparent when he suffered a spell of giddiness while inaugurating a sales tax office in Madurai as chief minister. He was taken to Chennai where he underwent medical examination. Close to a year before he died (on December 24, 1987), MGR celebrated the New Year in 1987 with cadres and his fans in Madurai. Raju recalled how the legendary politician sat on the dais at a function without his famous white fur cap. All through his public life, MGR was rarely seen without his fur cap or shades.
Chief minister J Jayalalithaa, who was by then a popular actress, having acted in several films with MGR, entered the political scene much later, in 1982.

கொடியின் வரலாறு அ.தி.மு.க.வின் துவக்க காலக்

கொடியின் வரலாறு அ.தி.மு.க.வின் துவக்க காலக்

J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J

எம்.ஜி.ஆரின் வழிகாட்டுதலோடு, நடிகர் பாண்டு, அ.தி.மு.க.

எம்.ஜி.ஆரின் வழிகாட்டுதலோடு, நடிகர் பாண்டு, அ.தி.மு.க.

69.69% of the votes were responded.

For the good reasons for the two packages, such as the drug and the water, the election did not take place; the two shrinked, the March 11th took place.

"மருங்காபுரி

தொகுதிகளுக்கு

நடைபெறவில்லை

முகப்பு
செய்திகள்
தமிழ்நாடு-Tamil Nadu
இந்தியா-India
உலகம்-World
விளையாட்டு-Sports
சமூகப் பங்களிப்பாளர்கள்
தமிழ் சாதனையாளர்கள்-Tamil Achievers
வலைத்தமிழ் மாத இதழ் -Monthly Magazine
தமிழ் தொழிலதிபர்கள்
தமிழர்களின் கண்டுபிடிப்புகள்
அரசியல்
கட்டுரை/நிகழ்வுகள்
அரசியல் வரலாறு
அரசியல்வாதிகள்
தேர்தல்
வளர்ச்சித் திட்டங்கள்
சுதந்திரப் போராட்டம்
சினிமா
சினிமா செய்திகள்
திரைவிமர்சனம்
சினிமா தொடர்கள்
திரைப்படங்களின் விபரம்
கட்டுரைகள்
இலக்கியம்
கவிதை
தமிழ் மொழி - மரபு
சிறுகதை
கட்டுரை
சங்க இலக்கியம்
திருக்குறள்
பாடல்கள்
நாட்டுடமை நூல்கள்
தமிழ் நூல்கள்
தமிழிசை
தாய்த்தமிழ் பள்ளிகள்
ஆய்வுக்கட்டுரைகள்
உலகத் தமிழ் மாநாடுகள்
நாட்டுப்புறக் கலைகள்
தமிழ் எழுத்தாளர்கள்
சமையல்
அசைவம்
சைவம்
இனிப்பு
காரம்
ஆரோக்கிய உணவு/சிறுதானியம்
சமையல் கட்டுரைகள்
பிற நாட்டு சமையல்
ஆன்மீகம்
இராசி பலன்கள்
கட்டுரை
இந்து மதம்
கிறித்துவம்
இஸ்லாம்
ஓகம்
கோயில்கள்
பண்டிகைகள்
ஆன்மீகத் தமிழர்கள்
சிந்தனைகள்
ஜோதிடம்
சுற்றுலா
தமிழ்நாடு சுற்றுலா
இந்திய சுற்றுலா
உலக சுற்றுலா
தமிழ் வரலாறு
சிறுவர்
குழந்தை வளர்ப்பு - Bring up a Child
தமிழ்க்கல்வி - Tamil Learning
சுட்டிக்கதைகள் - Kids Stories
சிறுவர் விளையாட்டு - kids Game
தமிழகக் கலைகள்
குழந்தைப் பெயர்கள் - Baby Name
பிறந்தநாள் பாடல் -Tamil Birthday Song
சிறார் செய்திகள் - தகவல்கள்
சிறுவர் இலக்கியம்
கட்டுரை/தொடர்கள்
வலைத்தமிழ் மொட்டு - ValaiTamil Mottu
உடல்நலம்
மருத்துவக் குறிப்புகள்
பழங்கள்-தானியங்கள்
குழந்தை மருத்துவம்
காய்கறிகள்-கீரைகள்-பூக்கள்
மகளிர் மட்டும்
யோகா-தியானம்
உடற்பயிற்சி
ஹெல்த் டிப்ஸ் -(Health Tips)
மகளிர் அழகுக்குறிப்புகள்
கட்டுரை
தற்சார்பு
விவசாயச் செய்திகள்
தோட்டக்கலை
விவசாய கருவிகள்
கட்டுரைகள்/சிறப்பு நிகழ்ச்சிகள்
கால்நடை - மீன் வளர்ப்பு
மரபு-தற்சார்பு வாழ்வியல்
மற்றவை
அறிவியல்
கல்வி/வேலை
பொதுசேவை
சிறப்புக்கட்டுரை
தகவல்
வாழ்வியல்
இந்தியச் சட்டம் (Indian Law)
Events
Magazine
Mottu(Kids)
Tamil Dictionary
Baby Names
Movies
Temples
WebTV
Photos
Videos
Forum
Classifieds
Thirukkural
THIRUKKURAL SEARCH
You can search any word in English and Tamil to find the usage of that in any Kural/meaning.
For Example:
"அரசன்" or "King"
இயல்பாக நீங்கள் டைப் செய்யும் எழுத்துக்கள் Space bar அழுத்தியவுடன் தமிழில் தோன்றும். உங்கள் எழுத்துக்கள் ஆங்கிலத்தில் இருக்க CTRL+G press செய்யவும்.
- Choose குறள் எண் -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
(அல்லது)
- Choose அதிகாரம் -
1. கடவுள் வாழ்த்து
2. வான்சிறப்பு
3. நீத்தார் பெருமை
4. அறன்வலியுறுத்தல்
5. இல்வாழ்க்கை
6. வாழ்க்கைத் துணைநலம்
7. புதல்வரைப் பெறுதல்
8. அன்புடைமை
9. விருந்தோம்பல்
10. இனியவைகூறல்
11. செய்ந்நன்றி அறிதல்
12. நடுவு நிலைமை
13. அடக்கமுடைமை
14. ஒழுக்கமுடைமை
15. பிறனில் விழையாமை
16. பொறையுடைமை
17. அழுக்காறாமை
18. வெஃகாமை
19. புறங்கூறாமை
20. பயனில சொல்லாமை
21. தீவினையச்சம்
22. ஒப்புரவறிதல்
23. ஈகை
24. புகழ்
25. அருளுடைமை
26. புலான்மறுத்தல்
27. தவம்
28. கூடாவொழுக்கம்
29. கள்ளாமை
30. வாய்மை
31. வெகுளாமை
32. இன்னாசெய்யாமை
33. கொல்லாமை
34. நிலையாமை
35. துறவு
36. மெய்யுணர்தல்
37. அவாவறுத்தல்
38. ஊழ்
39. இறைமாட்சி
40. கல்வி
41. கல்லாமை
42. கேள்வி
43. அறிவுடைமை
44. குற்றங்கடிதல்
45. பெரியாரைத் துணைக்கோடல்
46. சிற்றினஞ்சேராமை
47. தெரிந்துசெயல்வகை
48. வலியறிதல்
49. காலமறிதல்
50. இடனறிதல்
51. தெரிந்துதெளிதல்
52. தெரிந்துவினையாடல்
53. சுற்றந்தழால்
54. பொச்சாவாமை
55. செங்கோன்மை
56. கொடுங்கோன்மை
57. வெருவந்தசெய்யாமை
58. கண்ணோட்டம்
59. ஒற்றாடல்
60. ஊக்கமுடைமை
61. மடியின்மை
62. ஆள்வினையுடைமை
63. இடுக்கணழியாமை
64. அமைச்சு
65. சொல்வன்மை
66. வினைத்தூய்மை
67. வினைத்திட்பம்
68. வினைசெயல்வகை
69. தூது
70. மன்னரைச் சேர்ந்தொழுதல்
71. குறிப்பறிதல்
72. அவையறிதல்
73. அவையஞ்சாமை
74. நாடு
75. அரண்
76. பொருள்செயல்வகை
77. படைமாட்சி
78. படைச்செருக்கு
79. நட்பு
80. நட்பாராய்தல்
81. பழைமை
82. தீ நட்பு
83. கூடாநட்பு
84. பேதைமை
85. புல்லறிவாண்மை
86. இகல்
87. பகைமாட்சி
88. பகைத்திறந்தெரிதல்
89. உட்பகை
90. பெரியாரைப் பிழையாமை
91. பெண்வழிச்சேறல்
92. வரைவின்மகளிர்
93. கள்ளுண்ணாமை
94. சூது
95. மருந்து
96. குடிமை
97. மானம்
98. பெருமை
99. சான்றாண்மை
100. பண்புடைமை
101. நன்றியில்செல்வம்
102. நாணுடைமை
103. குடிசெயல்வகை
104. உழவு
105. நல்குரவு
106. இரவு
107. இரவச்சம்
108. கயமை
109. தகையணங்குறுத்தல்
110. குறிப்பறிதல்
111. புணர்ச்சிமகிழ்தல்
112. நலம்புனைந்துரைத்தல்
113. காதற்சிறப்புரைத்தல்
114. நாணுத்துறவுரைத்தல்
115. அலரறிவுறுத்தல்
116. பிரிவாற்றாமை
117. படர்மெலிந்திரங்கல்
118. கண்விதுப்பழிதல்
119. பசப்புறுபருவரல்
120. தனிப்படர்மிகுதி
121. நினைந்தவர்புலம்பல்
122. கனவுநிலையுரைத்தல்
123. பொழுதுகண்டிரங்கல்
124. உறுப்புநலனழிதல்
125. நெஞ்சொடுகிளத்தல்
126. நிறையழிதல்
127. அவர்வயின்விதும்பல்
128. குறிப்பறிவுறுத்தல்
129. புணர்ச்சிவிதும்பல்
130. நெஞ்சொடுபுலத்தல்
131. புலவி
132. புலவி நுணுக்கம்
133. ஊடலுவகை
திருக்குறள்
-
குறள்: 45
அன்பும் அறனும் உடைத்தாயின் இல்வாழ்க்கை
பண்பும் பயனும் அது.
குறள் விளக்கம்

Question: what percentage of votes were responded to the drug and water packages

69.69% of the votes were responded.

For the good reasons for the two packages, such as the drug and the water, the election did not take place; the two shrinked, the March 11th took place.

what percentage of votes were responded to the drug and water packages

Question: what were the reasons for the election not happening

69.69% of the votes were responded.

what were the reasons for the election not happening

Question: when did the election in india shrink

69.69% of the votes were responded.

Question: what were the reasons for the election not taking place

69.69% of the votes were responded.

what were the reasons for the election not taking place

Question: when did the two packages shrink

மார்ச்சு 11 ஆம் நாள்

69.69% of the votes were responded.

Question: what is the main reason for the shrinking of the election

69.69% of the votes were responded.

what is the main reason for the shrinking of the election

Question: what happened to the election on march 11th

69.69% of the votes were responded.

what happened to the election on march 11th

Question: what percentage of votes were received in the election

69.69% of the votes were responded.

what percentage of votes were received in the election

For the good reasons for the two packages , such as the drug and the water , the election did not take place ; the two shrinked , the March 11th took place .

69.69 % வாக்குகள் பதிவாகின. மருங்காபுரி மற்றும் மதுரை கிழக்கு ஆகிய இரு தொகுதிகளுக்கு நிருவாக காரணங்களால், தேர்தல் நடைபெறவில்லை; இருமாதங்கள் கழித்து, மார்ச்சு 11 ஆம் நாள் நடைபெற்றது.

69.69 % வாக்குகள் பதிவாகின.

மருங்காபுரி மற்றும் மதுரை கிழக்கு ஆகிய இரு தொகுதிகளுக்கு நிருவாக காரணங்களால், தேர்தல் நடைபெறவில்லை; இருமாதங்கள் கழித்து, மார்ச்சு 11 ஆம் நாள் நடைபெற்றது.

69.69% of the votes were responded. For the good reasons for the two packages, such as the drug and the water, the election did not take place; the two shrinked, the March 11th took place.

For the good reasons for the two packages, such as the drug and the water, the election did not take place; the two shrinked, the March 11th took place.

He was the first to be the doctor.J.

ஜெயலலிதா மறைவு தமிழக முன்னாள் முதல்வர் டாக்டர். ஜெ. ஜெயலலிதா அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச்செயலாளர் ஜெயலலிதா, முதலமைச்சராக, பதவியிலிருக்கும் போது, 5 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று காலமானார்.

ஜெயலலிதா மறைவு தமிழக முன்னாள் முதல்வர் டாக்டர். ஜெ.

ஜெயலலிதா அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச்செயலாளர் ஜெயலலிதா, முதலமைச்சராக, பதவியிலிருக்கும் போது, 5 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று காலமானார்.

He was the first to be the doctor.J. The President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia and the President of the Republic of Yugoslavia.

He has been the chief executive of the government.

After that, on December 29, 2016, the General Secretary of the United Nations was appointed as the General Officer of the United Nations (UNHCR).

பன்னீர்செல்வம்

அ.தி.மு.க.வின்

உறுப்பினர்கள்

அ.தி.மு.க.வின்

Question: when was the general secretary of the united nations appointed

29 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று அ.தி.மு.க.வின்

He has been the chief executive of the government.

After that, on December 29, 2016, the General Secretary of the United Nations was appointed as the General Officer of the United Nations (UNHCR).

when was the general secretary of the united nations appointed

Question: what is the full title of unHCR

உறுப்பினர்கள் ஒன்றுகூடி , அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச்

Question: what position does he hold at the united nations

பன்னீர்செல்வம் தலைமையிலான அமைச்சரவை பதவியேற்றது

what position does அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம் hold at the united nations

Question: what position is held by the president of the united nations

பன்னீர்செல்வம்

what position is held by the president of the united nations

Question: what position is held by the general secretary of the united nations

General Officer of the United Nations (UNHCR)

உறுப்பினர்கள் ஒன்றுகூடி , அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச்

General Officer of the United Nations ( UNHCR )

what position is held by the general secretary of the united nations

Question: what is the position of unHCR

பொதுக்குழு உறுப்பினர்கள் ஒன்றுகூடி , அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச் செயலாளராக

He has been the chief executive of the government .

After that , on December 29 , 2016 , the General Secretary of the United Nations was appointed as the General Officer of the United Nations ( UNHCR ) .

பன்னீர்செல்வம் தலைமையிலான அமைச்சரவை பதவியேற்றது. அதற்குப் பின்னர், 29 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுக்குழு உறுப்பினர்கள் ஒன்றுகூடி, அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச் செயலாளராக வி. கே.

பன்னீர்செல்வம் தலைமையிலான அமைச்சரவை பதவியேற்றது.

அதற்குப் பின்னர், 29 டிசம்பர் 2016 அன்று அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுக்குழு உறுப்பினர்கள் ஒன்றுகூடி, அ.தி.மு.க.வின் பொதுச் செயலாளராக வி. கே.

He has been the chief executive of the government. After that, on December 29, 2016, the General Secretary of the United Nations was appointed as the General Officer of the United Nations (UNHCR).

He has been the chief executive of the government.

After that, on December 29, 2016, the General Secretary of the United Nations was appointed as the General Officer of the United Nations (UNHCR).

On February 5, 2017, Saskatchewan was elected the head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members.

அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின்

உறுப்பினர்களின்

தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார்

CHENNAI: For AIADMK
general secretary VK Sasikala
, election as the legislature party leader on Sunday marks continuance of the legacy of late Jayalalithaa
, who also held the two posts allowing her to wield complete control over the party and the government.
62-year-old Sasikala, shadow of Jayalalithaa for over three decades, was always considered a power centre and backroom player.
Sasikala, also known as 'Chinamma
', emerged the party's numero uno when she was elected as AIADMK general secretary on December 31 last, following Amma's death.
Today's development marks continuance of the political legacy of Jayalalithaa and MGR, who had held both the posts of party general secretary and chief minister.
But it has been a roller coaster ride for her in politics as her detractors in the party had in 1996 accused her of being responsible for Jayalalithaa's disastrous election defeat during that year.
Sasikala accompanied Jayalalithaa to prison when the latter was arrested in a disproportionate assets case. She suffered a blow when she was expelled for anti-party activities five years ago by Jayalalithaa. However, she was restored within a few months.
Amma's demise on December 5 was seen as a personal loss for Sasikala who resided with her at the latter's house, Veda Nilayam in Poes Garden, even choosing to stay away from her husband.
Sasikala's presence by Jayalalithaa's side when she was hospitalised on September 22 also raised some controversies, including allegations that access to the ailing leader was not being allowed even to the late chief minister's kin.
Sasikala belongs to the dominant Thevar community like O Panneerselvam.
An aspiring small-time entrepreneur offering video coverage services and allied products like video cassettes in the early 1980s, Sasikala got acquainted with Jayalalithaa in 1982 along with her husband M Natarajan through the then IAS officer VS Chandraleka.
It was Sasikala who had got video-graphed the function of Jayalalithaa while she was organising a party conference in Cuddalore in 1982.
Sasikala remained a wall of support for Jayalalithaa through thick and thin over the next three decades.
In her much televised 1999 interview "Rendezvous with Simi Garewal", Jayalalithaa had said Sasikala was targeted much because of her association with her.
She had described Sasikala as her "sister" who fulfilled the role of her late mother by taking care of her.
Sasikala came into the limelight when Jayalalithaa took over as chief minister for the first time in 1991.
Jayalalithaa's defeat in the 1996 polls was attributed to her conducting the infamous extravagant wedding of her foster son and Sasikala's nephew VN Sudhakaran, a year ago.
Sasikala was also incarcerated along with Jayalalithaa in the alleged colour TV scam in 1996.
After the AIADMK's rout, Jayalalithaa had announced that she was severing ties with Sasikala. Again in 2011, Sasikala was expelled along with her husband Natarajan and 12 other relatives.
However, on both the occasions, they settled their differences and Sasikala resumed living in Jayalalithaa's Poes Garden residence after assuring the AIADMK chief that she would keep away from her relatives.
Besides Sudhakaran being disowned by Jayalalithaa, Sasikala's husband and a host of other relatives also fell out of favour at Poes Garden.
In early 1980s, Sasikala's husband Natarjan was a government PRO in Cuddalore with strong moorings in Dravidian ideology.

Question: who was elected president of the united states in february 2017

On February 5, 2017, Saskatchewan was elected the head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members.

who was elected president of the united states in february 2017

Question: when was saskatchewan elected to the u.s. senate

"5 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று ,

when was saskatchewan elected to the u.s. senate

Question: who is saskatchewan elected to represent

அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின்

who is saskatchewan elected to represent

Question: when was the last time saskatchewan was elected to the u.s. senate

when was the last time saskatchewan was elected to the u.s. senate

Question: what position does saskatchewan hold

head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members

அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின் தலைவராக

head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members

Question: during which month of the year is saskatchewan elected as a member of the us

during which month of the year is saskatchewan elected as a member of the us

On February 5 , 2017 , Saskatchewan was elected the head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members .

5 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின் தலைவராக சசிகலா தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார்.

5 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின் தலைவராக சசிகலா தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார்.

On February 5, 2017, Saskatchewan was elected the head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members.

On February 5, 2017, Saskatchewan was elected the head of the U.S. U.S. Legislative Members.

On February 5, 2017, Sassila was chosen as the head of the U.S.A.M.C. Legislative Members. As a result, P.P.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.

Published : 06 Feb 2017 08:47 AM
Last Updated : 06 Feb 2017 08:47 AM
அதிமுக எம்எல்ஏக்கள் கூட்டத்தில் ஒருமனதாக தேர்வு
அதிமுக எம்எல்ஏக்கள் கூட்டத்தில் சட்டப்பேரவை கட்சித் தலைவராக சசிகலா ஒருமனதாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டார். இதையடுத்து முதல்வர் பதவியை ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் ராஜினாமா செய்தார். வரும் 9-ம் தேதி ஆளுநர் மாளிகையில் தமிழகத்தின் 21-வது முதல்வராக சசிகலா பதவியேற்கிறார்.
தமிழகத்தில் கடந்த 2016-ல் நடந்த சட்டப்பேரவை பொதுத்தேர்தலில் அதிமுக வெற்றி பெற்று 2-வது முறையாக தொடர்ந்து ஆட்சியைப் பிடித்தது. இதையடுத்து, தமிழக முதல்வராக 6-வது முறையாக ஜெயலலிதா பதவியேற்றார். கடந்த செப்டம்பர் 22-ம் தேதி இரவு திடீர் உடல்நலக்குறைவு காரண மாக மருத்துவமனையில் அனுமதிக் கப்பட்டார். இதையடுத்து, ஜெய லலிதா கவனித்து வந்த உள்துறை உள்ளிட்ட துறைகள் ஓ.பன்னீர் செல்வத்திடம் ஒப்படைக்கப்பட்டது.
மருத்துவமனையில் சிகிச்சை பலனின்றி டிசம்பர் 5-ம் தேதி ஜெயலலிதா காலமானார். இதை யடுத்து, அன்று இரவே முதல்வராக ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் பதவியேற்றார். அவருடன் ஜெயலலிதா அமைச் சரவையில் இருந்த அமைச்சர்களும் பதவியேற்றனர்.
பொதுச்செயலாளரான சசிகலா
இதைத் தொடர்ந்து, அதிமுகவின் பொதுச்செயலாளர் யார் என்ற குழப்பம் ஏற்பட்டது. அப்போது பொதுச்செயலாளராக சசிகலாவை முதல்வர் ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வமே முன்மொழிந்தார். அதன்பின் டிசம்பர் 29-ம் தேதி நடந்த அதிமுக பொதுக்குழு, செயற்குழு கூட்டத்தில், சசிகலா ஒருமனதாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டார். அவர் டிசம் பர் 31-ம் தேதி கட்சித் தலைமை அலுவலகத்தில் பொதுச் செயலாள ராக பொறுப்பேற்றுக்கொண்டார்.
இதற்கிடையே கட்சி, ஆட்சி நிர்வாகங்கள் இரண்டும் ஒருவ ரிடமே இருக்க வேண்டும். அதனால், முதல்வர் பொறுப்பையும் சசிகலா ஏற்க வேண்டும் என அதிமுக மூத்த நிர்வாகிகளும் அமைச்சர்களும் வெளிப்படையாகவே கோரிக்கை விடுத்தனர். ஆனால், சசிகலா தொடர்ந்து அமைதி காத்து வந்தார். பொங்கலுக்கு முன்னதாக அவர் முதல்வராக பதவியேற்பார் என தகவல்கள் வெளியாயின. ஆனால், ஜல்லிக்கட்டு போராட்டம் தீவிரமானதால் அந்த முயற்சி தள்ளிப்போனது.
கடந்த ஜனவரி 23 முதல் பிப்ரவரி 2-ம் தேதி வரை சட்டப்பேரவை கூட்டம் நடந்தது. ஜெயலலிதா பிறந்த நாளான பிப்ரவரி 24-ம் தேதிக்குள் சசிகலா முதல்வராக பொறுப்பேற்க வாய்ப்பிருப்பதாக கட்சி வட்டாரங்கள் தெரிவித்து வந்தன.
இந்நிலையில், பிப்ரவரி 5-ம் தேதி அதிமுக எம்எல்ஏக்கள் கூட்டம் நடக்கும் என திடீரென அறிவிக்கப் பட்டது. எம்எல்ஏக்களுக்கு தொலை பேசியில் அழைப்பு விடுக்கப்பட்டது. இந்தக் கூட்டத்தில் சட்டப்பேரவை கட்சித் தலைவராக (முதல்வராக) சசிகலா தேர்வு செய்யப்படுவார் என்றும் அவர் உடனடியாக முதல் வர் பதவியை ஏற்பார் என்றும் தகவல்கள் வெளியாயின.
இதைத் தொடர்ந்து, நேற்று காலை முதல்வர் ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் மற்றும் 10-க்கும் மேற்பட்ட மூத்த அமைச்சர்கள் போயஸ் தோட்ட இல்லத்துக்கு சென்றனர். அங்கு, சசிகலாவுடன் நீண்ட நேரம் ஆலோசனை நடத்தினர். இதில் மக்களவை துணைத் தலைவர் தம்பிதுரை உள்ளிட்டோரும் பங்கேற்றனர்.
ஆலோசனை முடிந்ததும் அமைச்சர்கள் அனைவரும் ராயப் பேட்டையில் உள்ள கட்சித் தலைமை அலுவலகத்துக்கு வந்த னர். முதல்வர் ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் 2.10 மணிக்கு வந்தார். 3.10 மணிக்கு சசிகலா வந்தார். அவரை தம்பிதுரை, ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம், செங்கோட்டையன் உள்ளிட்டோர் வரவேற்றனர். பின்னர் எம்எல்ஏக்கள் கூட்டம் தொடங்கியது.
இதில், அதிமுக சட்டப்பேரவை கட்சித் தலைவராக சசிகலாவை தேர்வு செய்யும் தீர்மானத்தை முதல்வர் ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் முன்மொழிந்தார். இதையடுத்து, சசிகலா ஒருமனதாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டதாக அறிவிக்கப் பட்டது. கூட்டம் முடிந்ததும் 3.40 மணிக்கு போயஸ் தோட்டத்துக்கு சசிகலா திரும்பினார்.
சசிகலா சட்டப்பேரவை கட்சித் தலைவராக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட் டதை அடுத்து ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம் தனது முதல்வர் பதவியை ராஜினாமா செய்தார். அந்தக் கடிதத்தை ஆளுநருக்கு அனுப்பி வைத்துள்ளார். இதைத்தொடர்ந்து தமிழகத்தின் 21-வது முதல்வராக சசிகலா பதவியேற்க உள்ளார். பதவியேற்பு விழா, வரும் 9-ம் தேதி ஆளுநர் மாளிகையில் எளிமையாக நடக்கும் என்றும், இதற்கான ஏற்பாடுகள் தொடங்கப்பட்டு விட்டதாகவும் கட்சி வட்டாரங்கள் தெரிவித்தன.
டெல்லியில் ஆளுநர்
அதிமுக சட்டப்பேரவை கட்சித் தலைவராக சசிகலா தேர்வு செய் யப்பட்டது குறித்து கோவையில் நிகழ்ச்சி ஒன்றில் பங்கேற்றிருந்த ஆளுநர் வித்யாசாகர் ராவுக்கு தகவல் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது. ஆனால், அவர் நேற்றிரவு திடீரென கோவையில் இருந்து டெல்லி புறப்பட்டுச் சென்றார். அவர் மீண்டும் 7-ம் தேதி இரவு சென்னை திரும்புகிறார். அப்போது ஆளுநரை சந்திக்கும் சசிகலா சட்டப்பேரவை கட்சித் தலைவராக தான் தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டதற்கான கடிதத்தை வழங்கி ஆட்சி அமைக்க உரிமை கோருவார். அதன்பின் ஆளுநர் ஒப்புதல் அளித்ததும் முதல்வராக சசிகலா பொறுப்பேற்பார் என தலைமைச் செயலக வட்டாரங்கள் தெரிவித்தன.
Sign up to receive our newsletter in your inbox every day!

5 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின் தலைவராக சசிகலா தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார். இதனையடுத்து, ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம், முதல்வர் பதவியிலிருந்து விலகுவதற்கான கடிதத்தை ஆளுநருக்கு அனுப்பி வைத்தார்.

5 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.வின் சட்டமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களின் தலைவராக சசிகலா தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார். இதனையடுத்து, ஓ.பன்னீர்செல்வம், முதல்வர் பதவியிலிருந்து விலகுவதற்கான கடிதத்தை ஆளுநருக்கு அனுப்பி வைத்தார்.

7 February 2017 The first of the responsibilities meeting with the newsmakers, Penierscelli, said that, because he had committed himself, he had only given the discharge of his retirement.

செய்தியாளர்களை

பன்னீர்செல்வம்

கட்டாயப்படுத்தியதால்

தெரிவித்தார்

Tamil Nadu’s politics took a dramatic turn on Tuesday night with outgoing Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam announcing that he was compelled to resign from his post and humiliated while holding the high office. Following this revolt, AIADMK general secretary V.K. Sasikala dismissed him from the post of party treasurer and appointed Dindigul Srinivasan in his place.
Hinting that he was not in favour of Ms. Sasikala taking over the reins of the government, he declared, “Only someone who has the support of all the cadre of the party and the mandate of the people should take charge as Chief Minister. It should be based on the wishes of the people. Taking into account the future of Tamil Nadu, someone who can run the party efficiently and as per Amma’s wishes and keep up the good name alone should lead.” Mr. Panneerselvam, who said he wasn’t informed in advance about Sunday’s MLAs’ meeting, added that he would be willing to withdraw his resignation “if people wanted”.
Earlier Mr. Panneerselvam’s unexpected show of revolt at the memorial of Jayalalithaa, his political mentor, drew support from a cross-section of people including AIADMK cadre who converged outside his house in the night. Some Ministers and supporters had assembled outside the Veda Nilayam bungalow of late Jayalalithaa, where Ms. Sasikala continues to live.
Mr. Panneerselvam took everyone by surprise when he went to the memorial at the Marina around 9 p.m., accompanied by only his personal security staff and aides, and sat in meditation for about 40 minutes before alleging that Ms. Sasikala was “annoyed” over his government’s good work during Cyclone Vardah.
‘Conscience pricking me’
“I came here [Marina] because my conscience was pricking me. I have some truth to tell the people of the country and the cadre,” Mr. Panneerselvam told reporters.
The Chief Minister said that when Jayalalithaa was in hospital, he was initially told that the plan was to make senior leader E. Madhusoodhanan the general secretary and him the Chief Minister.
However, after he assumed office, Revenue Minister R.B. Udhayakumar gave an interview saying Ms. Sasikala should also hold office as CM. This he felt undermined his position and he protested. Similarly, he was taken aback when Health Minister C. Vijaya Baskar told him that Ms. Sasikala’s brother Divakaran had conveyed that she should be general secretary instead of the initial plan to install Mr. Madhusoodhanan.

Question: who is the news minister of south africa 2017

7 February 2017 The first of the responsibilities meeting with the newsmakers, Penierscelli, said that, because he had committed himself, he had only given the discharge of his retirement.

who is the news minister of south africa 2017

Question: what year did penierscelli retire

Question: when did penierscelli retire from parliament

"7 பிப்ரவரி 2017

when did penierscelli retire from parliament

Question: what did penierscelli give to the newsmakers

what did penierscelli give to the newsmakers

Question: what was penierscelli's discharge of

Question: what did penierscelli say he had given to the newsmakers

what did penierscelli say அனைத்திந்திய அண்ணா திராவிட முன்னேற்றக் கழகம் had given to the newsmakers

Question: what was penierscelli's discharge from

Question: who does penierscelli work for

செய்தியாளர்களை

7 February 2017 The first of the responsibilities meeting with the newsmakers , Penierscelli , said that , because he had committed himself , he had only given the discharge of his retirement .

7 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று செய்தியாளர்களை சந்தித்த பொறுப்பு முதல்வர் பன்னீர்செல்வம், தன்னைக் கட்டாயப்படுத்தியதால், பதவி விலகல் கடிதத்தை தான் அளித்ததாகத் தெரிவித்தார்.

7 பிப்ரவரி 2017 அன்று செய்தியாளர்களை சந்தித்த பொறுப்பு முதல்வர் பன்னீர்செல்வம், தன்னைக் கட்டாயப்படுத்தியதால், பதவி விலகல் கடிதத்தை தான் அளித்ததாகத் தெரிவித்தார்.

7 February 2017 The first of the responsibilities meeting with the newsmakers, Penierscelli, said that, because he had committed himself, he had only given the discharge of his retirement.

7 February 2017 The first of the responsibilities meeting with the newsmakers, Penierscelli, said that, because he had committed himself, he had only given the discharge of his retirement.

The name of the group starts the end time of release 1 M.J. Armstrong 30 June, 1977 17 February, 1980 1 M.J. Armstrong 2 M.J. Armstrong 9 June, 1980 15 November, 1984 2 M.J. Armstrong.

இராமச்சந்திரன்

இராமச்சந்திரன்

அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.கஇரா

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, September 22, 2001
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home
|
|
Front Page
| Next
|
SC unseats Jayalalithaa as CM
By J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 21. The Supreme Court today dealt a severe blow
to the political career of the AIADMK chief, Ms. Jayalalithaa, by
quashing her appointment as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by the
then Governor, Ms. Fathima Beevi, on May 14.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, in a unanimous verdict of 5-0,
held ``a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years
cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article
164 (1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.''
In effect, the court rejected the argument that a popular mandate
- or the `will' of the people - could override the Constitution.
Holding that her appointment ``was not legal and valid,'' Mr.
Justice S.P. Bharucha, speaking for himself and Mr. Justice Y.K.
Sabharwal, said ``we are satisfied that in the appointment of Ms.
Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister there has been a clear
infringement of a Constitutional provision and that a writ of quo
warranto must issue.'' And Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, speaking
for himself and Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, gave a separate but
concurring judgment as did Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
The Bench observed that it was not impressed by the submission
that the court should not issue a quo warranto as the six-month
period, allowed by Article 164 (4), would expire in about two
months and it was possible for Ms. Jayalalithaa to succeed in the
criminal appeals (in the TANSI cases) filed by her in the Madras
High Court. ``We take the view that the appointment of a person
to the office of Chief Minister who is not qualified to hold it
should be struck down at the earliest.''
A non-legislator could be made Chief Minister or Minister under
Article 164 only if he/she had the qualifications to become a
member of the legislature, as enshrined in Article 173, and was
not disqualified by reason of the disqualification set out in
Article 191. It would be ``unreasonable and anomalous'' to say
that a Minister who was a member of the legislature was required
to meet the Constitutional standards of qualification and
disqualification, but that a Minister who was not a member need
not. Logically, the standards expected of a Minister, who was not
a member, should be the same as, if not greater than, those
required of a member.
The Bench cited a situation wherein a party, with a majority in
the legislature, could recommend to the Governor the appointment
of a foreign citizen, who would not be a member, and who would
not be qualified to become one under Article 173, as Chief
Minister under Article 164 (1) read with 164 (4). The Governor,
in the instance, would be obliged to comply; the legislature
would be unable to pass a no-confidence motion against the
foreigner ``Chief Minister'' because the majority party would
oppose it; and the ``Chief Minister'' would continue in office
till the next election.
``Such a dangerous - such an absurd interpretation of Article 164
has to be rejected out of hand. The Constitution prevails over
the `will' of the people as expressed through the majority party.
The `will'' of the people prevails only if it is in accordance
with the Constitution.''
Referring to the submission of Ms. Jayalalithaa's counsel that
the Governor, while exercising her discretion under Article 164
(4), could appoint any person as Minister or Chief Minister, the
Bench said ``to accept counsel's submission is to invite
disaster.''
``The Governor cannot, in the exercise of his/her discretion or
otherwise, do anything that is contrary to the Constitution and
the laws.'' Therefore, the Governor, having due regard to the
Constitution and the laws, must decline to exercise the
discretion in appointing as Chief Minister a non-member who was
not qualified to become a member of the legislature.
The Bench did not accept the contention that once a sentence was
stayed by the High Court and an appeal was pending, the
conviction would not operate and Ms. Jayalalithaa suffered no
disqualification, and said ``conviction and sentence it carries
operate against the accused in all their rigour until set aside
in appeal, and a disqualification that attaches to the conviction
and sentence applies as well.''
The Bench held that the day Ms. Jayalalithaa was sworn-in, she
was disqualified by reason of her convictions under the
Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences of imprisonment of
not less than two years, under Sec. 8 (3) of the Representation
of the People Act.
``We are aware that the finding that Ms. Jayalalithaa could not
have been sworn in as Chief Minister and cannot continue to
function as such will have serious consequences.''
To alleviate these consequences, the Bench invoked the de facto
doctrine and declared that all acts, otherwise legal and valid,
performed between May 14 and September 21 by Ms. Jayalalithaa as
Chief Minister, by the Council of Ministers and by the State
Government shall not be adversely affected by the order.
By J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 21. The Supreme Court today dealt a severe blow to the political career of the AIADMK chief, Ms. Jayalalithaa, by quashing her appointment as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by the then Governor, Ms. Fathima Beevi, on May 14.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, in a unanimous verdict of 5-0, held ``a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164 (1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.'' In effect, the court rejected the argument that a popular mandate - or the `will' of the people - could override the Constitution.
Holding that her appointment ``was not legal and valid,'' Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, speaking for himself and Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, said ``we are satisfied that in the appointment of Ms. Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister there has been a clear infringement of a Constitutional provision and that a writ of quo warranto must issue.'' And Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, speaking for himself and Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, gave a separate but concurring judgment as did Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
The Bench observed that it was not impressed by the submission that the court should not issue a quo warranto as the six-month period, allowed by Article 164 (4), would expire in about two months and it was possible for Ms. Jayalalithaa to succeed in the criminal appeals (in the TANSI cases) filed by her in the Madras High Court. ``We take the view that the appointment of a person to the office of Chief Minister who is not qualified to hold it should be struck down at the earliest.''
A non-legislator could be made Chief Minister or Minister under Article 164 only if he/she had the qualifications to become a member of the legislature, as enshrined in Article 173, and was not disqualified by reason of the disqualification set out in Article 191. It would be ``unreasonable and anomalous'' to say that a Minister who was a member of the legislature was required to meet the Constitutional standards of qualification and disqualification, but that a Minister who was not a member need not. Logically, the standards expected of a Minister, who was not a member, should be the same as, if not greater than, those required of a member.
The Bench cited a situation wherein a party, with a majority in the legislature, could recommend to the Governor the appointment of a foreign citizen, who would not be a member, and who would not be qualified to become one under Article 173, as Chief Minister under Article 164 (1) read with 164 (4). The Governor, in the instance, would be obliged to comply; the legislature would be unable to pass a no-confidence motion against the foreigner ``Chief Minister'' because the majority party would oppose it; and the ``Chief Minister'' would continue in office till the next election.
``Such a dangerous - such an absurd interpretation of Article 164 has to be rejected out of hand. The Constitution prevails over the `will' of the people as expressed through the majority party. The `will'' of the people prevails only if it is in accordance with the Constitution.''
Referring to the submission of Ms. Jayalalithaa's counsel that the Governor, while exercising her discretion under Article 164 (4), could appoint any person as Minister or Chief Minister, the Bench said ``to accept counsel's submission is to invite disaster.''
``The Governor cannot, in the exercise of his/her discretion or otherwise, do anything that is contrary to the Constitution and the laws.'' Therefore, the Governor, having due regard to the Constitution and the laws, must decline to exercise the discretion in appointing as Chief Minister a non-member who was not qualified to become a member of the legislature.
The Bench did not accept the contention that once a sentence was stayed by the High Court and an appeal was pending, the conviction would not operate and Ms. Jayalalithaa suffered no disqualification, and said ``conviction and sentence it carries operate against the accused in all their rigour until set aside in appeal, and a disqualification that attaches to the conviction and sentence applies as well.''
The Bench held that the day Ms. Jayalalithaa was sworn-in, she was disqualified by reason of her convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences of imprisonment of not less than two years, under Sec. 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act.
``We are aware that the finding that Ms. Jayalalithaa could not have been sworn in as Chief Minister and cannot continue to function as such will have serious consequences.''
To alleviate these consequences, the Bench invoked the de facto doctrine and declared that all acts, otherwise legal and valid, performed between May 14 and September 21 by Ms. Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister, by the Council of Ministers and by the State Government shall not be adversely affected by the order.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Section : Front Page Next : Fathima Beevi defends her action
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home|
Copyright © 2001 The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu

Question: when did mj armstrong die

The name of the group starts the end time of release 1 M.J. Armstrong 30 June, 1977 17 February, 1980 1 M.J. Armstrong 2 M.J. Armstrong 9 June, 1980 15 November, 1984 2 M.J. Armstrong.

Question: what year did mj armstrong release his first album

what year did mj armstrong release his first album

Question: who was the first person released from prison

who was the first person released from prison

Question: when does the name of a group start

Question: in what year did mj armstrong release his first album

in what year did mj armstrong release his first album

Question: when did mj armstrong release his first album

when did mj armstrong release his first album

வரிசை எண் பெயர் தொடக்கம் முடிவு முறை கட்சி 1 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 30 ஜூன், 1977 17 பிப்ரவரி, 1980 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 2 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 9 ஜூன், 1980 15 நவம்பர், 1984 2 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.கஇரா.

வரிசை எண் பெயர் தொடக்கம் முடிவு முறை கட்சி 1 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 30 ஜூன், 1977 17 பிப்ரவரி, 1980 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 2 எம். ஜி. இராமச்சந்திரன் 9 ஜூன், 1980 15 நவம்பர், 1984 2 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.கஇரா.

The name of the group starts the end time of release 1 M.J. Armstrong 30 June, 1977 17 February, 1980 1 M.J. Armstrong 2 M.J. Armstrong 9 June, 1980 15 November, 1984 2 M.J. Armstrong.

The name of the group starts the end time of release 1 M.J. Armstrong 30 June, 1977 17 February, 1980 1 M.J. Armstrong 2 M.J. Armstrong 9 June, 1980 15 November, 1984 2 M.J. Armstrong.

Netherlands 24 December, 1987 7 January, 1988 1 U.S. U.S. U.S. 6 U.S. U.S.

January 7, 1988 January 30, 1988 1st U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. 7 J.

நெடுஞ்செழியன் 24 டிசம்பர், 1987 7 ஜனவரி, 1988 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க 6 வி. என்.

ஜானகி 7 ஜனவரி, 1988 30 ஜனவரி, 1988 1 அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க (ஜானகி அணி) 7 ஜெ.

Netherlands 24 December, 1987 7 January, 1988 1 U.S. U.S. U.S. 6 U.S. U.S. January 7, 1988 January 30, 1988 1st U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. 7 J. On September 21, 2001, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled in a unanimous verdict that "a person who is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164 (1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such."

Netherlands 24 December, 1987 7 January, 1988 1 U.S. U.S. U.S. 6 U.S. U.S.

January 7, 1988 January 30, 1988 1st U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. 7 J.

In effect, her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JUDGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 242 of 2001
PETITIONER:
B.R. KAPOOR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/09/2001
BENCH:
G.B. Pattanaik, S.P. Bharucha , Brijesh Kumar , Y.K. Sabharwal & Ruma Pal
JUDGMENT:
With
W.P.(C) No. 245 of 2001, W.P.(C) No. 246 of 2001, W.P.(C)
No. 261 of 2001, , T.C. (C) No. 26 of 2001 @ T.P.(C) No.
382 of 2001. & C.A. No. 6589 of 2001 @ S.L.P. (C) No.
11763 of 2001
JUDGMENT
PATTANAIK, J.
Leave granted.
I have my respectful concurrence with the conclusions
and directions in the judgment of Brother Bharucha, J. I am
conscious of the fact that plurality of judgments should
ordinarily be avoided. But, having regard to the importance
of the question involved, and the enormity of the
consequences, if the contentions of Respondent No. 2 are
accepted, I consider it appropriate to express my thoughts on
some aspects. It is not necessary to reiterate the facts which
have been lucidly narrated in the judgment of Brother
Bharucha,J. The question that arises for consideration is
whether a non elected member, whose nomination for
contesting the election to the Legislative Assembly stood
rejected, and that order of rejection became final, not being
assailed, could still be appointed as the Chief Minister or the
Minister under Article 164 of the Constitution, merely
because the largest number of elected members to the
Legislative Assembly elects such person to be their leader.
Be it be stated, that the nomination of such person had been
rejected, on the ground of disqualification incurred by such
person under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People
Act, 1951, the said person having been convicted under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and having
been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years. The main basis
of the arguments advanced by Mr. Venugopal, the learned
senior counsel, appearing for respondent no. 2, and Mr. PP
Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil
Nadu, is that Article 164 of the Constitution conferring
power on the Governor to appoint a person as Chief Minister,
and then appoint Ministers on the advice of such Chief
Minister, does not prescribe any qualification for being
appointed as Minister or Chief Minister, and on the other
hand, Sub-Article (4) of Article 164 enables such a Minister
to continue as a Minister for a period of six months and said
Minister ceases to be a Minister unless within that period of
six months gets himself elected as a member of the
Legislaure of the State. As such, it would not be appropriate
to import the qualifications enumerated for the members of
the State Legislature under Article 173, or the dis-
qualifications enumerated in respect of a person for being
chosen as or for being a member of the Legislative Assembly
under Article 191 of the Constitution. According to the
learned senior counsel, the Governor, while exercising power
under Article 164, is duty bound to follow the well settled
Parliamentary convention and invites a person to be the Chief
Minister, which person commands the confidence of the
majority of the House. In other words, if a political party gets
elected to the majority of seats in a Legislative Assembly and
such elected legislatures elected a person to be their leader,
and that fact is intimated to the Governor then the Governor
is duty bound to call that person to be the Chief Minister,
irrespective of the fact whether that person does not possess
the qualifications for being a member of the Legislative
Assembly, enumerated under Article 173, or is otherwise
disqualified for being chosen, or being a member of the
Legislative Assembly on account of any of the dis-
qualifications enumerated under Article 191. The aforesaid
contention is based upon two reasonings. (1) The lack of
prescription of qualification or dis-qualifications for a Chief
Minister or Minister under Article 164, and (2) that in a
Parliamentary democracy the Will of the people must prevail.
Necessarily, therefore, the provisions of Article 164 of the
Constitution requires an indepth examination, and further the
theory that in a Parliamentary democracy, the Will of the
people must prevail under any circumstance, as propounded
by Mr. Venugopal and Mr. Rao, requires a deeper
consideration. I would, therefore, focus my attention on the
aforesaid two issues.
It is no doubt true, that Articles 164(1) and 164(4) do
not provide any qualification or disqualification, for being
appointed as a Chief Minister or a Minister, whereas, Article
173 prescribes the qualification for a person to be chosen to
fill a seat in the Legislature of a State. Article 191 provides
the disqualification for a person for being chosen as or being
a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State. In the case in hand, the respondent no. 2
was disqualified under Article 191(1)(e) read with Section
8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in as
much as the said respondent no. 2 has been convicted under
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has been
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 years, though the
execution of that sentence has been suspended by the
Appellate Court while the appeal against the conviction and
sentence is pending before the High Court of Madras.
According to Mr. Venugopal, under the Constitution of
India, when no qualification or disqualification exists under
Article 164(1) or 164(4), it necessarily postulates that in the
area of constitutional governance for the limited period of six
months, any person could be appointed as a Chief Minister
or Minister and it would not be open to the Court to import
qualifications and disqualifications, prescribed under the
Constitution for being chosen as a member of the Legislative
Assembly. According to the learned counsel, the reasonable
conclusion to be drawn from the aforesaid constitutional
provision is that the constitution does not contemplate the
scrutiny of the credentials of a non-member Prime Minister
or Chief Minister or Minister, as in constitutional theory it is
the House, consisting of the majority thereof which proposes
him for this transient, temporary and limited period of six
months. It is also contended by Mr. Venugopal that people
who are the ultimate sovereign, express their will through
their elected representatives for selecting a non-elected
person as their leader and could be appointed as Chief
Minister and Article 164(4) unequivocally provides a period
of six months as locus poenitentia which operates as an
exception in deference to the voice of the majority of the
elected members, which in fact is the basis of a Parliamentary
Democracy. Mr. Venugopal also urged that a
disqualification being in the nature of a penalty unless
expressly found to be engrafted in the constitution or in other
words, in Article 164, it would not be appropriate for the
Court to incorporate that disqualification, which is provided
for being chosen as a member of the legislative assembly into
Article 164 and pronounce the validity of the appointment of
respondent No. 2, which has purely been made on the
strength of the voice of the majority of the elected members.
I am unable to accept these contentions of the learned
counsel, as in my considered opinion, the contentions are
based on a wrong premise. In a Parliamentary system of
government, when political parties fight elections to the
legislative assembly or to the Parliament for being chosen as
a member after results are declared, it would be the duty of
the President in case of Parliament and the Governor in case
of Legislative Assembly of the State, to appoint the Prime
Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be. When the
President appoints the Prime Minister under Article 75 or the
Governor appoints a Chief Minister under Article 164, the
question that weighs with the President or the Governor is,
who will be able to provide a stable government.
Necessarily, therefore, it is the will of the majority party that
should ordinarily prevail and it is assumed that the elected
members belonging to a majority political party would elect
one amongst them to be their leader. Constitution, however
does not prevent the elected members belonging to a political
party commanding the majority of seats in the legislative
assembly or the Parliament to elect a person who never
contested for being chosen as a member or a person who
though contested, got defeated in the election for one reason
or the other and it is in such a situation that person on being
elected as a leader of the political party commanding the
majority in the House, could be appointed as the Prime
Minister or the Chief minister. But the constitution certainly
does not postulate such elected representatives of the people
belonging to a political party commanding a majority in the
Parliament or the Assembly to elect a person as their leader
so as to be called by the President or the Governor to head
the government, who does not possess the qualification for
being chosen, to fill a seat in the Parliament or in the
legislative Assembly, as contained in Articles 84 and 173
respectively of the Constitution or who is disqualified for
being chosen as or for being a member of the House of
Parliament or the legislative Assembly, as stipulated under
Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution respectively. At any
rate, even if a person is elected as the leader by the elected
members of the legislative Assembly, commanding a
majority of seats in the Assembly and such person either does
not possess the qualification enumerated under Article 173 or
incurs disqualification for being chosen as, or for being a
member of the legislative Assembly, enumerated under
Article 191, then the Governor would not be bound to
respect that will of the elected members of the political party,
commanding the majority in the House, so as to appoint that
person as the Chief Minister under Article 164(1) of the
Constitution. When Article 164(1) itself confers the
discretion on the Governor to appoint a Chief Minister at his
pleasure and when the Governor has taken oath under
Article 159 of the Constitution to preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution and the law and shall devote himself
to the service and for the well-being of the people, it would
be against such oath, if such a person who does not possess
the qualification of being chosen as a member or has incurred
disqualification for being chosen as a member is appointed as
a Chief Minister, merely because Article 164 does not
provide any qualification or disqualification for being
appointed as a Chief Minister or Minister. It is indeed
axiomatic that the necessary qualification in Article 173 and
the disqualification in Article 191 proprio vigore applies to a
person for being appointed as the Chief Minister or a
Minister inasmuch as in a Parliamentary system of
government, a person is required to be chosen as a member
of the Legislative Assembly by the electorate of a
constituency and then would be entitled to be appointed as
the Chief Minister or a Minister on the advice of the Chief
Minister. Non-prescribing any qualification or
disqualification under Article 164 for being chosen as the
Chief Minister or Minister would only enable the Governor
to appoint a person as the Chief Minister or Minister for a
limited period of six months, as contained in Article 164(4)
of the Constitution, only if such person possesses the
qualification for being chosen as a member of the legislative
Assembly, as required under Article 173 and is not otherwise
disqualified on account of any of the disqualifications
mentioned in Article 191. Any other interpretation by way of
conferring an unfettered discretion on the Governor or
conferring an unfettered right on the elected members of a
political party commanding a majority in the legislative
Assembly to elect a person who does not possess the
qualifications, enumerated under Article 173 or who incurs
the disqualifications enumerated in Article 191 would be
subversive of the constitution and would be repugnant to the
theory of good governance and would be contrary to the
constitution itself, which constitution has been adopted,
enacted and given to the people of India by the people of
India.
In this connection it would be appropriate to notice that
even under the Government of India Act, 1935 where
Sections 51(1) and 51(2) were somewhat similar to Article
164 of the Constitution, even the Joint Committee Report on
Indian Constitutional Reforms would indicate that a
disqualified person could not have been appointed as a
Minister, as is apparent from the following sentence:
It was, therefore, suggested to us that the
Governor ought not to be thus restricted in his
choice, and that he ought to be in a position, if the
need should arise, to select a Minister or Ministers
from persons otherwise qualified for appointment
but to whom the doubtful pleasures of
electioneering might make no appeal.
Even in the Constituent Assembly Debates when Mohd.
Tahir, an M.P. suggested an amendment to Article 144(3) of
the Draft Constitution, which corresponds with Article
164(4) of the Constitution to the effect:
That a member shall, at the time of his
being chosen as such be a member of the
Legislative Assembly or the Legislative council of
the State, as the case may be.
and urged that it is wholly against the spirit of democracy
that a person who was not being chosen by the people of the
country, should be appointed as a Minister, Dr. Ambedkar
did not accept the amendment on the ground that tenure of a
minister must be subject to the condition of purity of
administration and confidence of the House. He further
stated:
It is perfectly possible to imagine that a person
who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a
Minister has been defeated in a constituency for
some reason which, although it may be perfectly
good, might have annoyed the constituency and
he might have incurred the displeasure of that
particular constituency.
If purity of administration and otherwise competence to hold
the post of Minister were the factors which weighed with the
founding fathers to allow a competent person to be appointed
as Chief Minister or a Minister for a limited period of six
months, who might have been defeated, it is difficult to
conceive that a person who is not an elected member, does
not possess even the minimum qualification for being chosen
as a member or has incurred the disqualification for being
chosen as a member could be appointed as a Chief Minister
or Minister, on the simple ground that Article 164 is quite
silent on the same and the Court cannot import anything into
the said Article. Thus on a pure construction of provisions of
Article 164 of the Constitution, the discussions made in the
Constituent Assembly, referred to earlier, the pre-existing
pari materia provision in the Government of India Act, 1935
as well as the discussion of the Joint Committee on Indian
Constitutional Reforms referred to earlier, make it explicitly
clear that notwithstanding the fact that no qualification or
disqualification is prescribed in Article 164(1) or Article
164(4) but such qualification or disqualification provided in
Articles 173 and 191 of the Constitution for being chosen as
a member will have to be read into Article 164 and so read,
respondent No. 2, who had incurred the disqualification
under Article 191(1)(e) read with Section 8(3) of the
Representation of the People Act, could not have been
appointed as the Chief Minister, whatever may be the
majority of her party members being elected to the legislative
assembly and they elected her as the leader of the party to
form the Government.
One ancillary argument raised by Mr. Venugopal, in this
connection requires some consideration. According to the
learned counsel, no adjudicatory machinery having been
provided for in Article 164, in the event the qualifications
and disqualifications prescribed for being chosen as a
member of the legislative assembly under Articles 173 and
191 are imported into Article 164, then it will be an
impossible burden for the Governor at that stage to decide the
question if the opponent raises the question of any
disqualification and no Governor can adjudicate on each one
of the disqualifications, enumerated in Article 191 read with
Sections 8 to 11 of the Representation of the People Act.
According to the learned counsel, the constitution has
avowedly not prescribed any qualification or disqualification
with regard to a non-member minister or Chief minister and
the only limitation is that such minister or Chief minister
must get elected within six months or else would cease to
become a minister. In my considered opinion, the
appointment of a non-member as the Chief Minister or
Minister on the advice of a Chief Minister is made under
Article 164 on the Governors satisfaction. If any of the
disqualifications mentioned in Article 191(1)(e) are brought
to the notice of the Governor which can be accepted without
any requirement of adjudication or if the Governor is
satisfied that the person concerned does not possess the
minimum qualification for being chosen as a member, as
contained in Article 173, then in such a case, there is no
question of an impossible burden on the Governor at that
stage and on the other hand, it would be an act on the part of
the Governor in accordance with the constitutional mandate
not to appoint such person as the Chief Minister or Minister
notwithstanding the support of the majority of the elected
members of the legislative assembly. In a given case, if the
alleged disqualification is dependant upon the disputed
questions of fact and evidence, the Governor may choose not
to get into those disputed questions of fact and, therefore,
could appoint such person as the Chief Minister or Minister.
In such a case, Governor exercises his discretion under
Article 164 in the matter of appointment of the Chief
Minister or a Minister. But in a case where the
disqualification is one which is apparent as in the case in
hand namely the person concerned has been convicted and
has been sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years
and operation of the conviction has not been stayed and the
appeal is pending, thereby the disqualification under Article
191(1)(e) read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the
People Act staring at the face, the Governor would be acting
beyond his jurisdiction and against the constitutional
inhibitions and norms in appointing such a disqualified
person as the Chief Minister on the sole reasoning that the
majority of the elected members to the legislative council
have elected the person concerned to be their leader. The
constitution does not permit brute force to impede the
constitution. The people of India and so also the elected
members to the legislative assembly are bound by the
constitutional provisions and it would be the solemn duty of
the peoples representatives who have been elected to the
legislative assembly to uphold the constitution. Therefore,
any act on their part, contrary to the constitution, ought not to
have weighed with the Governor in the matter of appointment
of the Chief Minister to form the Government. In my
considered opinion, therefore, the arguments of Mr.
Venugopal, on this score cannot be sustained.
One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the
respondents was the immunity of the Governor under Article
361 of the constitution. The genesis of the said arguments is
that the Governor of a State not being answerable to any
Court in exercise of performance of the powers and duty of
his office or for any act done or purported to be done by him
in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties
and respondent No. 2 having been appointed as Chief
Minister in exercise of powers of the Governor under Article
164, the said appointment as well as the exercise of discretion
by the Governor is immune from being challenged and is not
open to judicial review. The arguments of the counsel for the
respondents is also based on the ground that any
consideration by the Court to the legality of such an
appointment is not permissible as it is a political thicket. The
decision of this Court in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India,
1993(4) SCC 119 has been relied upon. At the outset, it
may be stated that the immunity provided to the Governor
under Article 361 is certainly not extended to an appointee by
the Governor. In the present proceedings, what has been
prayed for is to issue a writ of quo warranto on the averments
that respondent No. 2 was constitutionally disqualified to
usurp the public office of the Chief Minister, who has been
usurping the said post unauthorisedly on being appointed by
the Governor. In fact the Governor has not been arrayed as a
party respondent to the proceedings. In the very case of R.K.
Jain, it has been held by this Court in paragraph 73 that
judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent
possessed of qualification for appointment and the manner in
which the appointment came to be made or the procedure
adopted whether fair, just and reasonable. It has been further
stated in paragraph 70 of the said judgment that in a
democracy governed by rule of law surely the only
acceptable repository of absolute discretion should be the
courts. Judicial review is the basic and essential feature of
the Indian constitutional scheme entrusted to the judiciary.
It is the essence of the rule of law that the exercise of the
power by the State whether it be the legislature or the
executive or any other authority, should be within the
constitutional limitation and if any practice is adopted by the
executive, which is in violation of its constitutional
limitations, then the same could be examined by the Courts.
In S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994(3) SCC Page 1,
this Court held that a proclamation issued by the President on
the advice of the council of ministers headed by the Prime
Minister is amenable to judicial review. Even Justice
Ahmadi, as he then was, though was of the opinion that the
decision making of the President under Article 356 would not
be justiciable but was firmly of the view that a proclamation
issued by the President is amenable to judicial review.
Justice Verma and Justice Yogeshwar Dayal held that there is
no dispute that the proclamation issued under Article 356 is
subject to judicial review. So also was the view of Justice
Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice Pandian, where
Their Lordships have stated that the exercise of power by the
President under Article 356(1) to issue Proclamation is
subject to the Judicial review at least to the extent of
examining whether the conditions precedent to the issuance
of the Proclamation have been satisfied or not. According to
Justice Ramaswamy, the action of the President under Article
356 is a constitutional function and the same is subject to
judicial review and according to the learned Judge, the
question relating to the extent, scope and power of the
President under Article 356 though wrapped up with political
thicket, per se it does not get immunity from judicial review.
According to Justice Jeevan Reddy and Agarwal, JJ, the
power under Article 356(1) is a conditional power and in
exercise of the power of judicial review, the court is entitled
to examine whether the condition has been satisfied or not.
But in the case in hand, when an application for issuance of a
writ of quo warranto is being examined, it is not the
Governor who is being made amenable to answer the Court.
But it is the appointee respondent No. 2, who is duty bound
to satisfy that there has been no illegal usurpation of public
office. Quo warranto protects public from illegal usurpation
of public office by an individual and the necessary
ingredients to be satisfied by the Court before issuing a writ
is that the office in question must be public created by the
constitution and a person not legally qualified to hold the
office, in clear infringement of the provisions of the
constitution and the law viz. Representation of the People
Act has been usurping the same. If this Court ultimately
comes to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 is
disqualified under the constitution to hold public office of the
Chief Minister, as has already been held, then the immunity
of Governor under Article 361 cannot stand as a bar from
issuing a writ of quo warranto. In the present case, it is the
State Government who has taken the positive stand that there
has been no violation of the constitutional provisions or the
violation of law in the appointment of respondent No. 2, as
Chief Minister, the correctness of that stand is the subject
matter of scrutiny.
I am tempted to quote some observations of the United
States Supreme Court in the case of Lucas vs. Colorado
General Assembly 377 US 713, 12 L ed 2d 632, 84 S Ct
1472. It has been held in the aforesaid case: Manifestly,
the fact that an apportionment plan is adopted in a popular
referendum is insufficient to sustain its constitutionality or to
induce a Court of equity to refuse to act. It has been further
held : The protection of constitutional rights is not to be
approached either pragmatically or expediently, and though
the fact of enactment of a constitutional provision by heavy
vote of the electorate produces pause and generates restrain
we can not, true to our oath, uphold such legislation in the
face of palpable infringement of rights. It is too clear for
argument that constitutional law is not a matter of majority
vote. Indeed the entire philosophy of the Fourteenth
Amendment teaches that it is personal rights which are to be
protected against the will of the majority. What has been
stated therein should more appropriately be applicable to a
case where the constitution is the supreme document which
should bind people of India as well as all other constitutional
authorities, including the Governor, and, therefore if
respondent No. 2 is found to have been appointed as the
Chief Minister, contrary to the constitutional prohibition and
prohibition under the relevant law of the Representation of
the People Act, there should be no inhibition on the Court to
issue a writ of quo warranto and the so-called immunity of
the Governor will not stand as a bar.
According to Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Parliamentary
Democracy is admittedly a basic feature of the Constitution.
It would be the duty of every functionary under the
Constitution, including the Governor, and the judiciary to
give effect to the will of the people as reflected in the
election to the Legislative Assembly of a State. Once the
electorate has given its mandate to a political party and its
leader to run the Government of the State for a term of five
years, in the absence of any express provision in the
Constitution to the contrary, the Governor is bound to call
upon the leader of that Legislature Party, so elected by the
elected members, to form the Government. According to Mr.
Rao, there is no express, unambiguous provision in the
Constitution or in the provisions of Representation of People
Act, declaring that a person convicted of an offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for a period not less than 2 years
by the Trial Court shall not be appointed as Chief Minister
during the pendency of the first appeal. In such a situation,
the Governor is not expected to take a position of
confrontation with the people of the State who voted the
ruling party to power and plunge the State into a turmoil. In
support of this contention, observation of this Court in the
case of Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974 (2) SCC
831), The head of the State should avoid getting involved in
politics, was pressed into service. I am unable to persuade
myself to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Rao,
inasmuch as, in my considered opinion, the people of this
country as well as their voice reflected through their elected
representatives in the Legislative Assembly, electing a
disqualified person for being chosen as a member of the
Legislative Assembly, to be their leader are as much
subservient to the Constitution of India as the Governor
himself. In a democracy, constitutional law reflects the value
that people attach to orderly human relations, to individual
freedom under the law and to institutions such as Parliament,
political parties, free elections and a free press. Constitution
is a document having a special legal sanctity which sets out
the frame-work and the principal functions of the organs of
government within the State and declares the principles by
which those organs must operate. Constitution refers to the
whole system of the governance of a country and the
collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the
government. In our country, we have a written constitution,
which has been given by the people of India to themselves.
The said Constitution occupies the primary place.
Notwithstanding the fact, we have a written Constitution, in
course of time, a wide variety of rules and practices have
evolved which adjust operation of the Constitution to
changing conditions. No written constitution would contain
all the detailed rules upon which the government depends.
The rules for electing the legislature are usually found not in
the written Constitution but in the statutes enacted by the
legislature within limits laid down by the Constitution. A
Constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a
government or a good governance is a creature of the
Constitution. A documentary Constitution reflects the beliefs
and political aspirations of those who had framed it. One of
the principle of constitutionalism is what it had developed in
the democratic traditions. A primary function that is
assigned to the written Constitution is that of controlling the
organs of the Government. Constitutional law pre-supposes
the existence of a State and includes those laws which
regulate the structure and function of the principal organs of
government and their relationship to each other and to the
citizens. Where there is a written Constitution, emphasis is
placed on the rules which it contains and on the way in which
they have been interpreted by the highest court with
constitutional jurisdiction. Where there is a written
Constitution the legal structure of Government may assume a
wide variety of forms. Within a federal constitution, the
tasks of government are divided into two classes, those
entrusted to the federal organs of government, and those
entrusted to the various states, regions or provinces which
make up the federation. But the constitutional limits bind
both the federal and state organs of government, which limits
are enforceable as a matter of law. Many important rules of
constitutional behaviour, which are observed by the Prime
Minister and Ministers, Members of the Legislature, Judges
and Civil servants are contained neither in Acts nor in
judicial decisions. But such rules have been nomenclatured
by the Constitutional Writers to be the rule of the positive
morality of the constitution and some times the authors
provide the name to be the unwirtten maxims of the
constitution. Rules of constitutional behaviour, which are
considered to be binding by and upon those who operate the
Constitution but which are not enforced by the law courts nor
by the presiding officers in the House of Parliament. Sir Ivor
Jennings, in his book, Law and the Constitution had stated
that constitutional conventions are observed because of the
political difficulties which arise if they are not. These rules
regulate the conduct of those holding public office and yet
possibly the most acute political difficulty can arise for such
a person is to be forced out of office. The Supreme Court of
Canada stated that the main purpose of conventions is to
ensure that legal frame work of the constitution is operated in
accordance with the prevailing constitutional values of the
period. (see (1982) 125 DLR(3d) 1, 84). But where the
country has a written constitution which ranks as
fundamental law, legislative or executive acts which conflicts
with the constitution must be held to be unconstitutional and
thus illegal. The primary system of Government cannot be
explained solely in terms of legal and conventional rules. It
depends essentially upon the political base which underlies it,
in particular on the party system around which political life is
organised. Given the present political parties and the
electoral system, it is accepted that following a general
election, the party with a majority of seats in the State
legislature or the Parliament will form the Government. This
is what the Constitution postulates and permits. But in the
matter of formation of Government if the said majority
political party elects a person as their leader, whom the
Constitution and the laws of the country disqualifies for
being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly, then
such an action of the majority elected member would be a
betrayal to the electorates and to the Constitution to which
they owe their existence. In such a case, the so called will of
the people must be held to be unconstitutional and, as such,
could not be and would not be tolerated upon. When one
speaks of legislative supermacy and the will of the people,
the doctrine essentially consists of a rule which governs the
legal relationship between the legislature and the court, but
what is stated to be the legislative supermacy in the United
Kingdom has no application in our country with a written
Constitution limiting the extent of such supermacy of the
Legislature or Parliament. In other words, the people of the
country, the organs of the Government, legislature, executive
and judiciary are all bound by the Constitution which Hon.
Justice Bhagwati, J. describes in Minerva Mills case (1980
(3) Supreme Court Cases, 625) to be suprema lex or the
paramount law of the land and nobody is above or beyond
the Constitution. When Court has been ascribed the duty of
interpreting the Constitution and when Court finds that
manifestly there is an unauthorised exercise of power under
the Constitution, it would be the solemn duty of the Court to
intervene. The doctrine of legislative supermacy
distinguishes the United Kingdom from those countries in
which they have a written constitution, like India, which
imposes limits upon the legislature and entrust the ordinary
courts or a constitutional court with the function of deciding
whether the acts of the legislature are in accordance with the
Constitution. This being the position, the action of the
majority of the elected members of a political party in
choosing their leader to head the Government, if found to be
contrary to the Constitution and the laws of the land then the
Constitution and the laws must prevail over such
unconstitutional decision, and the argument of Mr. Rao, that
the will of the people would prevail must give way. In a
democratic society there are important reasons for obeying
the law, which do not exist in other forms of government.
Our political system still is not perfect and there are always
the scope for many legislative reforms to be made. But the
maintenance of life in modern society requires a willingness
from most citizens for most of the time to observe laws, even
when individually they may not agree with them.
In the aforesaid premises, and in view of the
conclusions already arrived at, with regard to the dis-
qualifications the respondent no. 2 had incurred, which
prevents her for not being chosen as a member of the
Legislative Assembly, it would be a blatant violation of
Constitutional laws to allow her to be continued as the Chief
Minister of a State, howsoever short the period may be, on
the theory that the majority of the elected members of the
Legislative Assembly have elected her as the leader and that
is the expression of the will of the people.
One other thing which I would like to notice, is the
consciousness of the people who brought such Public Interest
Litigation to the Court. Mr. Diwan in course of his
arguments, had raised some submissions on the subject -
Criminalisation of Politics and participation of criminals in
the electoral process as candidates and in that connection, he
had brought to our notice the order of the Election
Commission of India dated 28th of August, 1997. But for
answering the essential issue before us, it was not necessary
to delve into that matter and, therefore, we have not made an
in-depth inquiry into the subject. In one of the speeches by
the Prime Minister of India on the subject- Whither
Accountability, published in the Pioneer, Shri Atal Bihari
Vajpayee had called for a national debate on all the possible
alternatives for systematic changes to cleanse our democratic
governing system of its present mess. He has expressed his
dissatisfaction that neither Parliament nor the State Vidhan
Sabhas are doing with any degree of competence or
commitment what they are primarily meant to do: Legislative
function. According to him, barring exceptions, those who
get elected to these democratic institutions are neither
trained, formally or informally, in law-making nor do they
seem to have an inclination to develop the necessary
knowledge and competence in their profession. He has
further indicated that those individuals in society who are
generally interested in serving the electorate and performing
legislative functions are finding it increasingly difficult to
succeed in todays electoral system and the electoral system
has been almost totally subverted by money power, muscle
power, and vote bank considerations of castes and
communities. Shri Vajpayee also had indicated that the
corruption in the governing structures has, therefore,
corroded the very core of elective democracy. According to
him, the certainty of scope of corruption in the governing
structure has hightened opportunism and unscrupulousness
among political parties, causing them to marry and divorce
one another at will, seek opportunistic alliances and
coalitions often without the popular mandate. Yet they
capture and survive in power due to inherent systematic
flaws. He further stated casteism, corruption and
politicisation have eroded the integrity and efficacy of our
civil service structure also. The manifestoes, policies,
programmes of the political parties have lost meaning in the
present system of governance due to lack of accountability.
Lot of arguments had been advanced both by Mr. Venugopal
and Mr. Rao, on the ground that so far as the offences under
Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act are
concerned, mere conviction itself will not incur the
disqualification, but conviction and sentence for not less than
two years would disqualify a person and, therefore, in such a
case, a person even being convicted of an offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, will not be disqualified, if the
trying Judge imposes the punishment of imprisonment for a
term of one year, which is the minimum under Section 13(2)
of the prevention of Corruption Act and thus less than two
years, which is the minimum sentence required under Section
8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, to disqualify a
person for being chosen as a member or continuing as a
member. As has been discussed in the Judgment of Brother
Bharucha, J, the validity of providing different punishments
under different sub-sections of Section 8, has already been
upheld by this Court in the case of Raghbir Singh vs. Surjit
Singh, 1994 Supp.(3) S.C.C. 162. But having regard to the
mass scale corruption which has corroded the core of elective
democracy, it is high time for the Parliament to consider the
question of bringing the conviction under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, as a disqualification under Section 8(1) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, so that a person
on being convicted of an offence, punishable under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, could be
disqualified for being chosen, as a member or being
continuing as a member of the Legislative Assembly or the
Parliament. I hope and trust, our representatives in the
Parliament will bestow due thought over this issue.
These Writ Petitions, Special Leave Petition/Civil
Appeal and Transferred case stand disposed of in terms of the
directions contained in the judgment of Brother Bharucha,J.
....................................J.
(G.B. Pattanaik)
September 21, 2001
Bharucha, J.
Leave granted.
A question of great constitutional importance arises in these
matters, namely, whether a person who has been convicted of a
criminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspended
pending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as the
Chief Minister of a State.
The second respondent, Ms. J. Jayalalitha, was Chief Minister
of the State of Tamil Nadu between 1991 and 1996. In respect of that
tenure in office she was (in CC 4 of 1997 and CC 13 of 1997)
convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under Section
409 of the Indian Penal Code. She w as sentenced to undergo 3
years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in the first
case and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of
Rs.5000 in the second case.
The fine that was imposed in both cases was paid.
The second respondent preferred appeals against her conviction
before the High Court at Madras. The appeals are pending. On
applications filed by her in the two appeals, the High Court, by an
order dated 3rd November, 2000, suspended the sentences of
imprisonment under Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and directed the release of respondent No.2 on bail on the terms and
conditions specified in that order. Thereafter, she filed petitions in the
two appeals seeking the stay of the operation of the judgments in the
two criminal cases. On 14th April, 2001 a learned Single Judge of the
High Court at Madras, Mr.Justice Malai Subramanium, dismissed
these petitions since the convictions were, inter alia, for offences
under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. These orders were not challenged.
In April, 2001 the second respondent filed nomination papers
for four constituencies in respect of the general election to be held to
the Tamil Nadu Assembly. On 24th April, 2001 three nomination
papers were rejected on account of her disqualification under Section
8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by reason of her
conviction and sentence in the two criminal cases. The fourth
nomination paper was rejected for the reason that she had filed her
nomination for more than two seats. The correctness of the orders of
rejection was not called in question.
On 13th May, 2001 the results of the election to the Tamil
Nadu Assembly were announced and the AIADMK party, which had
projected the second respondent as its Chief Ministerial nominee, won
by a large majority. On 14th May, 2001, consequent upon the result of
the election, the AIADMK elected the second respondent as its
leader.
On 14th May, 2001 the second respondent was sworn in as
Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.
These writ petitions and appeal contend that the second
respondent could not in law have been sworn in as Chief Minister and
cannot continue to function as such. They seek directions in the
nature of quo warranto against her.
The provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, that
are relevant to the second respondents conviction and sentence read
thus :
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence
of criminal misconduct, -
(a) ..
(b) ..
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for
his own use any property entrusted to him or
under his control as a public servant or
allows any other person to do so; or
(d) if he, -
i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or
ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
or
iii) while holding office as a public servant,
obtains for any person any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage without any public
interest; or
(e) ..
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not
less than one year but which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, also relevant to the
conviction and sentence, reads thus :
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or
by banker, merchant or agent Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker,
merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent,
commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for
life], or with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
For the purposes of answering the question formulated earlier,
the following provisions of the Constitution of India are most relevant:
163(1) There shall be a Council of Ministers with
the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the
Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in
so far as he is by or under this Constitution
required to exercise his functions or any of them in
his discretion.
164. Other provisions as to Ministers
(1) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the
Governor and the other Ministers shall be
appointed by the Governor on the advice of the
Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office
during the pleasure of the Governor:
Provided that in the State of Bihar, Madhya
Pradesh and Orissa, there shall be a Minister in
charge of tribal welfare who may in addition be in
charge of the welfare of the Scheduled Castes and
backward classes or any other work.
(2) The Council of Ministers shall be collectively
responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the
State.
(3) Before a Minister enters upon his office, the
Governor shall administer to him the oaths of
office and of secrecy according to the forms set out
for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
(4) A minister who for any period of six
consecutive months is not a member of the
Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of
that period cease to be a Minister.
(5) The salaries and allowances of Ministers shall
be such as the Legislature of the State may from
time to time by law determine and, until the
Legislature of the State so determines, shall be as
specified in the Second Schedule.
173. Qualification for membership of the State
Legislature A person shall not be qualified to be
chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State
unless he
a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes
before some person authorised in that behalf
by the Election Commission an oath or
affirmation according to the form set out for
the purpose in the Third Schedule;
b) is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative
Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of
age and in the case of a seat in the Legislative
Council, not less than thirty years of age; and
c) possesses such other qualifications as may be
prescribed in that behalf by or under any law
made by Parliament.
177. Rights of Ministers and Advocate-General as
respects the Houses Every Minister and the
Advocate-General for a State shall have the right to
speak in, and otherwise to take part in the
proceedings of, the Legislative Assembly of the
State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative
Council, both Houses, and to speak in, and
otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, any
committee of the Legislature of which he may be
named a member, but shall not, by virtue of this
article, be entitled to vote.
191. Disqualifications for membership
(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen
as, and for being, a member of the Legislative
Assembly or Legislative Council of a State -
a) if he holds any office of profit under the
Government of India or the Government of any
State specified in the First Schedule, other than
an office declared by the Legislature of the
State by law not to disqualify its holder;
b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared
by a competent court;
c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily
acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is
under any acknowledgement of allegiance or
adherence to a foreign State;
e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law
made by Parliament.
Explanation For the purposes of this clause, a
person shall not be deemed to hold an office of
profit under the Government of India or the
Government of any State specified in the First
Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either
for the Union or for such State.
(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a
member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the
Tenth Schedule.
Provisions of a similar nature with regard to Parliament are to
be found in Articles 74, 75, 84, 88 and 102.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 was enacted to
provide for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to
the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the
qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses,
the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such
elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in
connection with such elections. The relevant provisions of that Act
for our purposes are Sections 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10 and 10A. They read
thus:
8. Disqualification on conviction for certain
offences
(1) A person convicted of an offence punishable
under -
(a) section 153A (offence of promoting enmity
between different groups on ground of
religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony) or section 171E
(offence of bribery) or section 171F (offence
of undue influence or personation at an
election) or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
of section 376 or section 376A or section 376B
or section 376C or section 376D (offences
relating to rape) or section 498A (offence of
cruelty towards a woman by husband or
relative of a husband) or sub-section (2) or
sub-section (3) of section 505 (offence of
making statement creating or promoting
enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or
offence relating to such statement in any place
of worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies) or the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), or
(b) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of
1955), which provides for punishment for the
preaching and practice of untouchability, and
for the enforcement of any disability arising
therefrom; or
(c) section 11 (offence of importing or exporting
prohibited goods) or the Customs Act, 1962
(52 of 1962); or
(d) sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a member
of an association declared unlawful, offence
relating to dealing with funds of an unlawful
association or offence relating to contravention
of an order made in respect of a notified place)
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (37 of 1967); or
(e) the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973
(46 of 1973); or
(f) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(g) section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts)
or section 4 (offence of committing disruptive
activities) of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987);
or
(h) section 7 (offence of contravention of the
provisions of section 3 to 6) of the Religious
Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988
(41 of 1988); or
(i) section 125 (offence of promoting enmity
between classes in connection with the
election) or section 135 (offence of removal of
ballot papers from polling stations) or section
135A (offence of booth capturing) or clause (a)
of sub-section (2) of section 136 (offence of
Fraudulently defacing or fraudulently
destroying any nomination paper) of this Act;
[or]
[(j) section 6 (offence of conversion of a place or
worship) of the Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act 1991; [or]
[(k) section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian
National Flag or the Constitution of India)
or section 3 (offence of preventing singing
of National Anthem) of the Prevention
of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971
(69 of 1971);]
shall be disqualified for a period of six years from
the date of such conviction.
(2) A person convicted for the contravention of
(a) any law providing for the prevention of
hoarding or profiteering; or
(b) any law relating to the adulteration of food or
drugs; or
(c) any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (28 of 1961); or
(d) any provisions of the Commission of Sati
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988),
and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six
months, shall be disqualified from the date of such
conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for
a further period of six years since his release.
(3) A person convicted of any offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two
years [other than any offence referred to sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified
from the date of such conviction and shall continue
to be disqualified for a further period of six years
since his release.]
[(4) Notwithstanding anything [in sub-section (1),
sub-section (2) and sub-section (3)] a
disqualification under either sub-section shall not,
in the case of a person who on the date of the
conviction is a member of Parliament or the
Legislature of a State, take effect until three
months have elapsed from that date or, if within
that period an appeal or application for revision is
brought in respect of the conviction or the
sentence, until that appeal or application is
disposed of by the court.
Explanation In this section
(a) law providing for the prevention of hoarding
or profiteering means any law, or any order,
rule or notification having the force of law,
providing for
(i) the regulation of production or
manufacture of any essential
commodity;
(ii) the control of price at which any
essential commodity may be brought or
sold;
(iii) the regulation of acquisition, possession,
storage,transport, distribution, disposal,
use or consumption of any essential
commodity;
(iv) the prohibition of the withholding from
sale of any essential commodity
ordinarily kept for sale;
(b) drug has the meaning assigned to it in the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
(c) essential commodity has the meaning
assigned to it in the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(d) food has the meaning assigned to it in the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(37 of 1954).
Central to the controversy herein is Article 164, with special
reference to sub-Article (4) thereof. This Court has considered its
import in a number of decisions. In Har Sharan Verma Vs. Shri
Tribhuvan Narain Singh, Chief Minister, U.P. and Another [1971 (1)
SCC 616], a Constitution Bench rendered the decision in connection
with the appointment of the first respondent therein as Chief Minister
of Uttar Pradesh at a time when he was not a member of either House
of the Legislature of that State. The Court said :
3. It seems to us that clause (4) of Article 164
must be interpreted in the context of Articles 163
and 164 of the Constitution. Article 163(1)
provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers
with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and
advise the Governor in the exercise of his
functions, except in so far as he is by or under this
Constitution required to exercise his functions or
any of them in his discretion. Under clause (1) of
Article 164, the Chief Minister has to be appointed
by the Governor and the other Ministers have to be
appointed by him on the advice of the Chief
Minister. They all hold office during the pleasure
of the Governor. Clause (1) does not provide any
qualification for the person to be selected by the
Governor as the Chief Minister or Minister, but
clause (2) makes it essential that the Council of
Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the
Legislative Assembly of the State. This is the only
condition that the Constitution prescribes in this
behalf.
6. It seems to us that in the context of the other
provisions of the Constitution referred to above
there is no reason why the plain words of clause
(4) of Article 164 should be cut down in any
manner and confined to a case where a Minister
loses for some reason his seat in the Legislature of
the State. We are assured that the meaning we
have given to clause (4) of Article 164 is the
correct one from the proceedings of the
Constituent Assembly and the position as it obtains
is England, Australia and South Africa.
The Court set out the position as it obtained in England, Australia and
South Africa and observed that this showed that Article 164(4) had
an ancient lineage.
In Har Sharan Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another [ 1985 (2)
SCC 48], a two Judge Bench of this Court considered a writ petition
for the issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto to one K.P.
Tewari, who had been appointed as a Minister of the Government of
Uttar Pradesh even though he was not a member of either House of the
State Legislature. Reliance was placed upon the earlier judgment in
the case of Tribhuvan Narain Singh and it was held that no material
change had been brought about by reason of the amendment of Article
173(a) in the legal position that a person who was not a member of
the State Legislature might be appointed a Minister, subject to
Article 164(4) which said that a Minister who for any period of six
consecutive months was not a member of the State Legislature would
at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.
Another two Judge Bench of this Court in Harsharan Verma Vs.
Union of India and Another [1987 (Supp.) SCC 310] considered the
question in the context of membership of Parliament and Article
75(5), which is similar in terms to Article 164(4). The Court said that
a person who was not a member of the either House of Parliament
could be a Minister for not more than six months; though he would
not have any right to vote, he would be entitled, by virtue of Article
88, to participate in the proceedings of Parliament.
In S.P. Anand, Indore Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda and Others [1996
(6) SCC 734], the first respondent, who was not a member of
Parliament, was sworn in as Prime Minister. This was challenged in a
writ petition under Article 32. Reference was made to the earlier
judgments. It was held, on a parity of reasoning if a person who is
not a member of the State Legislature can be appointed a Chief
Minister of a State under Article 164(4) for six months, a person who
is not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed Prime
Minister for the same period.
In S.R. Chaudhuri Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [2001 (5) SCALE
269], one Tej Parkash Singh was appointed a Minister of the State of
Punjab on the advice of the Chief Minister, Sardar Harcharan Singh
Barar. At the time of his appointment as a Minister Tej Parkash Singh
was not a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. He was not
elected as a member of that Assembly within a period of six months
and he submitted his resignation. During the same legislative term
Sardar Harcharan Singh Barar was replaced as Chief Minister by Smt.
Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. On her advice, Tej Parkash Singh was
appointed a Minister yet again. The appointment was challenged by a
writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto. The
writ petition was dismissed in limine and an appeal was filed by the
writ petitioner in this Court. The judgments aforementioned were
referred to by this Court and it was said :
17. The absence of the expression from amongst
members of the legislature in Article 164 (1) is
indicative of the position that whereas under that
provision a non-legislator can be appointed as a
Chief Minister or a Minister but that appointment
would be governed by Article 164(4), which places
a restriction on such a non-member to continue as
a Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may
be, unless he can get himself elected to the
Legislature within the period of six consecutive
months from the date of his appointment. Article
164(4) is, therefore, not a source of power or an
enabling provision for appointment of a non-
legislator as a Minister even for a short duration. It
is actually in the nature of a disqualification or
restriction for a non-member who has been
appointed as a Chief Minister or a Minister, as the
case may be, to continue in office without getting
himself elected within a period of six consecutive
months.
The Court said that in England the position was this :
In the Westminster system, it is an established
convention that Parliament maintains its position
as controller of the executive. By a well settled
convention, it is the person who can rely on
support of a majority in the House of Commons,
who forms a government and is appointed as the
Prime Minister. Generally speaking he and his
Ministers must invariably all be Members of
Parliament (House of Lords or House of
Commons) and they are answerable to it for their
actions and policies. Appointment of a non-
member as a Minister is a rare exception and if it
happens it is for a short duration. Either the
individual concerned gets elected or is conferred
life peerage.
The Court noted the constitutional scheme that provided for a
democratic parliamentary form of Government, which envisaged the
representation of the people, responsible Government and the
accountability of the Council of Ministers to the legislature. Thus was
drawn a direct line of authority from the people through the legislature
to the executive. The position in England, Australia and Canada
showed that the essentials of a system of representative Government,
like the one in India, were that, invariably, all Ministers were chosen
out of the members of the legislature and only in rare cases was a non-
member appointed a Minister and he had to get himself returned to the
legislature by direct or indirect election within a short period. The
framers of the Constitution had not visualised that a non-legislator
could be repeatedly appointed a Minister, for a term of six months
each, without getting elected because such a course struck at the very
root of parliamentary democracy. It was accordingly held that the
appointment of Tej Parkash Singh as a Minister for a second time was
invalid and unconstitutional.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the second
respondent, was right when he submitted that the question that arises
before us has not, heretofore, arisen before the courts. This is for the
reason that, heretofore, so far as is known, no one who was ineligible
to become a member of the legislature has been made a Minister.
Certainly, no one who has earned a conviction and sentence covered
by Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would appear to have
been appointed Chief Minister.
To answer the question before us, three sub-Articles of Article
164 need, in our view, to be read together, namely, sub-Articles
(1),(2) and (4). By reason of sub-Article (1), the Governor is
empowered to appoint the Chief Minister; the Governor is also
empowered to appoint the other Ministers, but, in this regard, he must
act on the advice of the Chief Minister. Sub-Article (2) provides, as is
imperative in a representative democracy, that the Council of
Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly
of the State. The political executive, namely, the Council of
Ministers, is thus, through the Legislative Assembly, made
representative of and accountable to the people of the State who have
elected the Legislative Assembly. There is necessarily implicit in
these provisions the requirement that a Minister must be a member of
the Legislative Assembly and thus representative of and accountable
to the people of the State. It is sub-Article (4) which makes the
appointment of a person other than a member of the Legislature of the
State as a Minister permissible, but it stipulates that a Minister who for
any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the
Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to
be a Minister. Necessarily implicit in sub-Article (4) read with sub-
Articles (1) and (2) is the requirement that a Minister who is not a
member of the legislature must seek election to the legislature and, in
the event of his failing to secure a seat in the legislature within six
months, he must cease to be a Minister. The requirement of sub-
Article (4) being such, it follows as the night the day that a person
who is appointed a Minister though he is not a member of the
legislature shall be one who can stand for election to the legislature
and satisfy the requirement of sub-Article (4). In other words, he must
be one who satisfies the qualifications for membership of the
legislature contained in the Constitution (Article 173) and is not
disqualified from seeking that membership by reason of any of the
provisions therein (Article 191) on the date of his appointment.
The provision of sub-Article (4) of Article 164 is meant to
provide for a situation where, due to political exigencies or to avail of
the services of an expert in some field, it is requisite to induct into the
Council of Ministers a person who is not then in the legislature. That
he is not in the legislature is not made an impassable barrier. To that
extent we agree with Mr. Venugopal, but we cannot accept his
submission that sub-Article (4) must be so read as to permit the
induction into the Council of Ministers of short term Ministers whose
term would not extend beyond six months and who, therefore, were
not required to have the qualifications and be free of the
disqualifications contained in Articles 173 and 191 respectively. What
sub-Article (4) does is to give a non-legislator appointed Minister six
months to become a member of the legislature. Necessarily, therefore,
that non-legislator must be one who, when he is appointed, is not
debarred from obtaining membership of the legislature : he must be
one who is qualified to stand for the legislature and is not disqualified
to do so. Sub-Article (4) is not intended for the induction into the
Council of Ministers of someone for six months or less so that it is of
no consequence that he is ineligible to stand for the legislature.
It would be unreasonable and anomalous to conclude that a
Minister who is a member of the legislature is required to meet the
constitutional standards of qualification and disqualification but that a
Minister who is not a member of the legislature need not. Logically,
the standards expected of a Minister who is not a member should be
the same as, if not greater than, those required of a member.
The Constituent Assembly Debates (Volume VII) note that
when the corresponding Article relating to Members of Parliament
was being discussed by the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar said:
.. The first amendment is by Mr. Mohd.
Tahir. His suggestion is that no person should be
appointed a minister unless at the time of his
appointment he is an elected member of the House.
He does not admit the possibility of the cases
covered in the proviso, namely, that although a
person is not at the time of his appointment a
member of the House, he may nonetheless be
appointed as a minister in the cabinet subject to the
condition that within six months he shall get
himself elected to the House. The second
qualification is by Prof. K.T. Shah. He said that a
minister should belong to a majority party and his
third qualification is that he must have a certain
educational status. Now, with regard to the first
point, namely, that no person shall be entitled to be
appointed a Minister unless he is at the time of his
appointment an elected member of the House. I
think it forgets to take into consideration certain
important matters which cannot be overlooked.
First is this, - it is perfectly possible to imagine that
a person who is otherwise competent to hold the
post of a Minister has been defeated in a
constituency for some reason which, although it
may be perfectly good, might have annoyed the
constituency and he might have incurred the
displeasure of that particular constituency. It is not
a reason why a member of the Cabinet on the
assumption that he shall be able to get himself
elected either from the same constituency or from
another constituency. After all the privilege that is
permitted is a privilege that extends only for six
months. It does not confer a right to that
individual to sit in the House without being elected
at all..
(Emphasis supplied)
What was said by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is self-explanatory. It
shows clearly that the Constituent Assembly envisaged that non-
legislator Ministers would have to be elected to the legislature within
six months and it proceeded on the basis that the Article as it read
required this. The manner in which we have interpreted Article 164 is,
thus, borne out.
It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was not
open to the Court to read into Article 164 the requirement that a non-
legislator Minister must be elected to the legislature within six
months. No qualifications or disqualifications could, it was submitted,
be read into a constitutional provision. Reliance was placed upon
passages from the some of the judgments in His Holiness
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala, [1973
(Supp.) S.C.R. 1].
What we have done is to interpret Article 164 on its own
language and to read sub-Article (4) thereof in the context of sub-
Articles (1) and (2). In any event, it is permissible to read into sub-
Article (4) limitations based on the language of sub-Articles (1) and
(2).
A Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union
of India & Ors. [1981 (1) SCR 206], considered in some detail the
judgment in Kesavananda Bharati. It was considering the validity of
the clauses introduced into Article 368 by the Constitution (Forty-
second Amendment) Act. They provided :
(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including
the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to
have been made under this article (whether before
on after the commencement of section 55 of the
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act,
1976) shall be called in question in any court on
any ground.
(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that there shall be no limitation whatever on the
constituent power of Parliament to amend by way
of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of
this Constitution under this article.
Chandrachud, C.J. noted in his judgment that the avowed purpose
thereof was the removal of doubts. He observed that after the
decision in Kesavananda Bharti, there could be no doubt as regards the
existence of limitations on Parliaments power to amend the
Constitution. In the context of the constitutional history of Article
368, the true object of the declaration contained in clause (5) was the
removal of those limitations. Clause (5) conferred upon Parliament a
vast and undefined power to amend the Constitution, even so as to
distort it out of recognition. The theme song of the Court in the
majority decision in Kesavananda Bharti had been, Amend as you
may even the solemn document which the founding fathers have
committed to your care, for you know best the needs of your
generation. But, the Constitution is a precious heritage; therefore, you
cannot destroy its identity. The majority judgment in Kesavananda
Bharti conceded to Parliament the right to make alterations in the
Constitution so long as they were within the basic framework. The
Preamble assured the people of India of a polity whose basic structure
was described therein as a Sovereign Democratic Republic; Parliament
could make any amendments to the Constitution as it deemed
expedient so long as they did not damage or destroy Indias
sovereignty and its democratic, republican character. Democracy was
a meaningful concept whose essential attributes were recited in the
Preamble itself : Justice, social, economic and political : Liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; and Equality of status
and opportunity. Its aim, again as set out in the Preamble, was to
promote among the people an abiding sense of Fraternity assuring the
dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation. The newly
introduced clause (5) demolished the very pillars on which the
Preamble rested by empowering Parliament to exercise its constituent
power without any limitation whatever. No constituent power could
conceivably go higher than the power conferred by clause (5) for it
empowered Parliament even to repeal the provisions of this
Constitution, that is to say, to abrogate democracy and substitute for
it a totally antithetical form of government. That could most
effectively be achieved, without calling democracy by any other
name, by denial of social, economic and political justice to the people,
by emasculating liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship and by abjuring commitment to the magnificient ideal of a
society of equals. The power to destroy was not a power to
amendment. Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending
power on Parliament, Parliament could not under the exercise of that
limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. A
limited amending power was one of the basic features of the
Constitution and, therefore, the limitations on that power could not be
destroyed. In other words, Parliament could not, under Article 368,
expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to
repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential
features. The donee of a limited power could not by the exercise of
that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.
All this was said in relation to the Article 368(1) and (5). Sub-
Article (1) read thus :
368. Power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution and procedure therefor
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power
amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any
provision of this Constitution in accordance with
the procedure laid down in this article.
Nothing can better demonstrate that is permissible for the Court to
read limitations into the Constitution based on its language and
scheme and its basic structure.
We hold, therefore, that a non-legislator can be made Chief
Minister or Minister under Article 164 only if he has the qualifications
for membership of the legislature prescribed by Article 173 and is not
disqualified from the membership thereof by reason of the
disqualifications set out in Article 191.
The next question is : Was the second respondent qualified for
membership of the legislature and not disqualified therefor when she
was appointed Chief Minister on 14th May, 2001.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the
suspension of the sentences passed against the second respondent by
the High Court at Madras was tantamount to the suspension of the
convictions against her. Our attention was then drawn to Section 8(3)
of the Representation of the People Act, which says that a person
convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less
than two years shall be disqualified.. In learned
counsels submission, for the purposes of Section 8(3), it was the
sentence alone which was relevant and if there were a suspension of
the sentence, there was a suspension of the disqualification. The
sentences awarded to the second respondent having been suspended,
the disqualification under Section 8(3), in so far as it applied to her,
was also suspended.
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of
which the second respondent was released on bail by the Madras High
Court reads, so far as is relevant, as follows :
389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal;
release of appellant on bail
(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the
Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by
it in writing, order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against be suspended
and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be
released on bail, or on his own bond.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is true that the order of the High Court at Madras on the
application of the second respondent states, Pending criminal appeals
the sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioners
shall be released on bail.., but this has to be read in the
context of Section 389 under which the power was exercised. Under
Section 389 an appellate court may order that the execution of the
sentence or order appealed against be suspended... It is
not within the power of the appellate court to suspend the sentence; it
can only suspend the execution of the sentence pending the disposal of
appeal. The suspension of the execution of the sentence does not alter
or affect the fact that the offender has been convicted of a grave
offence and has attracted the sentence of imprisonment of not less than
two years. The suspension of the execution of the sentences,
therefore, does not remove the disqualification against the second
respondent. The suspension of the sentence, as the Madras High
Court erroneously called it, was in fact only the suspension of the
execution of the sentences pending the disposal of the appeals filed by
the second respondent. The fact that she secured the suspension of the
execution of the sentences against her did not alter or affect the
convictions and the sentences imposed on her and she remained
disqualified from seeking legislative office under Section 8(3).
In the same connection, learned counsel for the respondents
drew our attention to the judgment of a learned single Judge of the
High Court at Madras, Mr. Justice Malai Subramanium, on the
application of the second respondent for stay of the execution of the
orders of conviction against her. The learned Judge analysed Section
8 of the Representation of the People Act and came to this conclusion:
In this case, sentence of imprisonment has already
been suspended. Under such circumstances, in my
view, there may not be any disqualification for the
petitioner to contest in the election.
Learned counsel submitted that it was because of this conclusion that
the learned Judge had not stayed the execution of the orders, and his
conclusion bound the Governor. In the first place, the interpretation of
the provision by the learned Judge is, as shown above, erroneous.
Secondly, the reason why he refused to stay the execution of the
orders was because the second respondent had been found guilty of
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thirdly, the learned
Judge was required by the application to consider whether or not the
execution of the orders against the second respondent should be
stayed; the consideration of and conclusion upon the provisions of
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act was wholly
extraneous to that issue. Fourthly, the conclusion was tentative, as
indicated by the use of the word may in the passage quoted from his
judgment above. Lastly, as will be shown, we are not here concerned
with what the Governor did or did not do; we are concerned with
whether the second respondent can show that she was, when she was
appointed Chief Minister, qualified to be a legislator under Article 173
and not disqualified under Article 191.
In relation to the difference in the periods of disqualification in
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the
People Act an argument similar to that which was raised and rejected
in Raghbir Singh Vs. Surjit Singh [1994 Supp (3) SCC 162] was
advanced. This Court there said :
5. Section 8 prescribes disqualification on
conviction for certain offences. Sub-section (1)
provides the disqualification for a period of six
years from the date of conviction for the offences
specified in clauses (a) to (i) thereof. In sub-
section (1), the only reference is to conviction for
the specified offences irrespective of the sentence
awarded on such conviction. Sub-section (2) then
prescribes that on conviction for the offences
specified therein and sentence to imprisonment for
not less than six months, that person shall be
disqualified from the date of such conviction and
shall continue to be disqualified for a further
period of six years since his release. Thus, in case
of conviction for the offences specified in sub-
section (2), the disqualification is attracted only if
the sentence is of imprisonment for not less than
six months and in that event the disqualification is
for a period of not merely six years from the date
of such conviction but commencing from the date
of such conviction it shall continue for a further
period of six years since his release. Sub-section
(3) then prescribes a similar longer period of
disqualification from the date of such conviction to
continue for a further period of six years since his
release where a person is convicted of any offence
and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than
two years, other than any offence referred to in
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). The
classification is clear. This classification is made
with reference to the offences and the sentences
awarded on conviction. In sub-section (1) are
specified the offences which are considered to be
of one category and the period of six years
disqualification from the date of conviction is
provided for them irrespective of one sentence
awarded on such conviction. In sub-section (2) are
specified some other offences, the conviction for
which is considered significant for disqualification
only if the sentence is of imprisonment for not less
than six months and in that case a longer period of
disqualification has been considered appropriate.
Then comes sub-section (3) which is the residuary
provision of this kind wherein the disqualification
is prescribed only with reference to the period of
sentence of imprisonment of not less than two
years for which the longer period of
disqualification is considered appropriate. The
legislature itself has classified the offences on the
basis of their nature and in the residuary provision
contained in sub-section (3), the classification is
made only with reference to the period of sentence
being not less than two years.
6. In sub-section (3) of Section 8, all persons
convicted of any offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than two years [other
than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2)] are classified together and the
period of disqualification prescribed for all of them
is the same. All persons convicted of offences
other than any offence referred to in sub-section
(1) or sub-section (3) and sentenced to
imprisonment of not less than two years constitute
one class and are governed by sub-section (3)
prescribing the same period of disqualification for
all of them. The category of persons covered by
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) being different and
distinct, the question of comparison inter se
between any two of these three distinct classes
does not arise. Without such a comparison
between persons governed by these different sub-
sections being permissible, the very basis of attack
on the ground of discrimination is not available.
Prescription of period of disqualification for
different classes of persons convicted of different
offences is within the domain of legislative
discretion and wisdom, which is not open to
judicial scrutiny.
It was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that
under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act the
disqualification was attracted on the date on which a person was
convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less
than two years. It was pointed out, rightly, that the law contemplated
that the conviction and the sentence could be on different dates. It was
submitted that it was unworkable that the disqualification should
operate from the date of conviction which could precede the date of
sentence; therefore, the conviction referred to in Section 8(3) should
be taken to be that confirmed by the appellate court because it was
only in the appellate court that conviction and sentence would be on
the same day. We find the argument unacceptable. In those cases
where the sentence is imposed on a day later that the date of
conviction (which, incidentally, is not the case here) the
disqualification would be attracted on the date on which the sentence
was imposed because only then would a person be both convicted of
the offence and sentenced to imprisonment for less not that two years
which is cumulatively requisite to attract the disqualification under
Section 8(3).
The focus was then turned upon Section 8(4) of the
Representation of the People Act and it was submitted that all the
disqualifications set down in Section 8 would not apply until a final
court had affirmed the conviction and sentence. This was for the
reason that the principle underlying Section 8(4) had to be extended to
a non legislator as, otherwise, Article 14 would stand violated for the
presumption of innocence would apply to a sitting member till the
conviction was finally affirmed but in the case of a non-legislator the
disqualification would operate on conviction by the court of first
instance. It was submitted that Section 8(4) had to be read down so
that its provisions were not restricted to sitting members and in all
cases the disqualification applied only when the conviction and
sentence was finally upheld.
Section 8(4) opens with the words Notwithstanding anything
in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), and it applies
only to sitting members of legislatures. There is no challenge to it on
the basis that it violates Article 14. If there were, it might be tenable
to contend that legislators stand in a class apart from non legislators,
but we need to express no final opinion. In any case, if it were found
to be violative of Article 14, it would be struck down in its entirety.
There would be, and is no question of so reading it that its provisions
apply to all, legislators and non-legislators, and that, therefore, in all
cases the disqualification must await affirmation of the conviction and
sentence by a final court. That would be reading up the provision,
not reading down, and that is not known to the law.
In much the same vein, it was submitted that the presumption of
innocence continued until the final judgment affirming the conviction
and sentence was passed and, therefore, no disqualification operated
as of now against the second respondent. Before we advert to the four
judgments relied upon in support of this submission, let us clear the
air. When a lower court convicts an accused and sentences him, the
presumption that the accused is innocent comes to an end. The
conviction operates and the accused has to undergo the sentence. The
execution of the sentence can be stayed by an appellate court and the
accused released on bail. In many cases, the accused is released on
bail so that the appeal is not rendered infructuous, at least in part,
because the accused has already undergone imprisonment. If the
appeal of the accused succeeds the conviction is wiped out as cleanly
as if it had never existed and the sentence is set aside. A successful
appeal means that the stigma of the offence is altogether erased. But
that it is not to say that the presumption of innocence continues after
the conviction by the trial court. That conviction and the sentence it
carries operate against the accused in all their rigour until set aside in
appeal, and a disqualification that attaches to the conviction and
sentence applies as well.
Learned counsel cited from the judgment of this Court in Padam
Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2000 (1) SCC 621] the passage which reads :
It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the
evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an
independent conclusion as to whether the said
evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it
can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution
can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable
doubt on the said evidence.
(Page 625 C)
The passage is relevant to the duty of an appeal court. It is the duty of
an appeal court to look at the evidence afresh to see if the case against
the accused has been established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt, uninfluenced by the decision of the trial court; in
other words, to look at it as if the presumption of the innocence of the
accused still applied. The passage does not support the proposition
canvassed.
In Maru Ram Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1981 (1) SCC 107] it
was stated :
When a person is convicted in appeal, it
follows that the appellate Court has exercised its
power in the place of the original court and the
guilt, conviction and sentence must be substituted
for and shall have retroactive effect from the date
of judgment of the trial Court. The appellate
conviction must relate back to the date of the trial
Courts verdict and substitute it.
There is no question of the correctness of what is set out above but it
has no application to the issue before us. What we are concerned with
is whether, on the date on which the second respondent was sworn in
as Chief Minister, she suffered from a disqualification by reason of the
convictions and sentences against her.
In Dilip Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh [1976 (1) SCC 560], this Court was concerned with Section
303 of the Indian Penal Code, which provided : Whoever being
under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder shall be
punished with death. Sarkaria, J., in his concurring judgment, held,
on an interpretation of the section, that once it was established that, at
the time of committing the murder, the prisoner was under a sentence
of life imprisonment, the court had no discretion but to award the
sentence of death, notwithstanding mitigating circumstances. The
provision was, therefore, Draconion in its severity. It was in these
circumstances that he held that the phrase being under sentence of
imprisonment for life had to be restricted to a sentence which was
final, conclusive and ultimate so far as judicial remedies were
concerned for the other alternative would lead to unreasonable and
unjust results. The observations of the learned Judge are relevant to
the case before him; they do not have wider implications and do not
mean that all convictions by a trial court do not operate until affirmed
by the highest Court.
Lastly, in this connection, our attention was drawn to the case of
Vidya Charan Shukla Vs. Purshottam Lal Kaushik [ 1981 (2) SCC
84]. The Court held that if a successful candidate was disqualified for
being chosen, at the date of his election or at any earlier stage of any
step in the election process, on account of his conviction and sentence
exceeding two years imprisonment, but his conviction and sentence
was set aside and he was acquitted on appeal before the
pronouncement of the judgment in the election petition pending
against him, his disqualification was retrospectively annulled and the
challenge to his election on the ground that he was so disqualified was
no longer sustainable. This case dealt with an election petition and it
must be understood in that light. What it laid down does not have a
bearing on the question before us: the construction of Article 164 was
not in issue. There can be no doubt that in a criminal case acquittal
in appeal takes effect retrospectively and wipes out the sentence
awarded by the lower court. This implies that the stigma attached to
the conviction and the rigour of the sentence are completely
obliterated, but that does not mean that the fact of the conviction and
sentence by the lower court is obliterated until the conviction and
sentence are set aside by an appellate court. The conviction and
sentence stand pending the decision in the appeal and for the purposes
of a provision such as Section 8 of the Representation of the People
Act are determinative of the disqualifications provided for therein.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that on the date on which the
second respondent was sworn in as Chief Minister she was
disqualified, by reason of her convictions under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and the sentences of imprisonment of not less than two
years, for becoming a member of the legislature under Section 8(3) of
the Representation of the People Act.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that,
even so, the court could do nothing about it. It was submitted that in
the case of a Chief Minister or Minister appointed under Article
164(1) read with (4) the people, who were the ultimate sovereign, had
expressed their will through their elected representatives. For the
period of six months the locus penitentiae operated as an exception,
as a result of which, for that period, the peoples will prevailed in a
true parliamentary democracy, especially as no provision was made
for adjudicating alleged disqualifications, like the holding of an office
of profit or a subsisting contract for the supply of goods or execution
of works. In this area of constitutional governance, for the limited
period of six months, it was not open to the court to import
qualifications and disqualifications for a minister qua minister when
none existed in Article 164(4). The Governor, not being armed with
the machinery for adjudicating qualifications or disqualifications, for
example, on the existence of subsisting contracts or the holding of
offices of profit, and having no power to summon witnesses or to
administer an oath or to summon documents or to deliver a reasoned
judgment, the appointment made by him on the basis of the
conventions of the Constitution could not be challenged in quo
warranto proceedings so that an appointment that had been made
under Article 164 could not be rendered one without the authority of
law. If it did so, the court would be entering the political thicket.
When qualifications and disqualifications were prescribed for a
candidate or a member of the legislature and a machinery was
provided for the adjudication thereof, the absence of the prescription
of any qualification for a Minister or Chief Minister appointed under
Article 164(1) read with (4) and for adjudication thereof meant that
the Governor had to accept the will of the people in selecting the Chief
Minister or Minister, the only consideration being whether the
political party and its leader commanded a majority in the legislature
and could provide a stable government. Once the electorate had given
its mandate to a political party and its leader to run the government of
a State for a term of five years, in the absence of any express
provision in the Constitution to the contrary, the Governor was bound
to call the leader of that legislature party to form the government.
There was no express, unambiguous provision in the Constitution or in
the Representation of the People Act or any decision of this Court or a
High Court declaring that a person convicted of an offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years by
the trial court shall not be appointed Chief Minister during the
pendency of his first appeal. In such a situation, the Governor could
not be expected to take a position of confrontation with the people of
the State who had voted the ruling party to power and plunge the State
into turmoil. In the present case, the Governor was entitled to
proceed on the basis that the appeals of the second respondent having
been directed, in October, 2000, to be heard within two months, it
would be open to the second respondent to have the appeals disposed
of within the time limit of six months and, in case of an acquittal, no
question of ineligibility to contest an election within the period of six
months would arise. If the Governor invited the leader of the party
which had a majority in the legislature to form a government, it would,
if the leader was a non legislator, thereafter not to be open to the court
in quo warranto proceedings to decide that the Chief Minister was
disqualified. Otherwise, this would mean that when the Governor had
invited, in accordance with conventions, the leader to be Chief
Minister, in the next second the leader would have to vacate his office
by reason of the quo warranto. The court would then be placing itself
in a position of prominence among the three organs of the State, as a
result of which, instead of the House deciding whether or not to
remove such a person through a motion of no confidence, the court
would take over the function, contrary to the will of the legislature
which would mean the will of the people represented by the majority
in the legislature. In then deciding that the Chief Minister should
demit office, the court would be entering the political thicket,
arrogating to itself a power never intended by the Constitution, the
exercise of which would result in instability in the governance of the
State.
We are, as we have said, not concerned here with the
correctness or otherwise of the action of the Governor in swearing the
second respondent in as Chief Minister in the exercise of the
Governors discretion.
But submissions were made by learned counsel for the
respondents in respect of the Governors powers under Article 164
which call for comment. The submissions were that the Governor,
exercising powers under Article 164(1) read with (4), was obliged to
appoint as Chief Minister whosoever the majority party in the
legislature nominated, regardless of whether or not the person
nominated was qualified to be a member of the legislature under
Article 173 or was disqualified in that behalf under Article 191, and
the only manner in which a Chief Minister who was not qualified or
who was disqualified could be removed was by a vote of no-
confidence in the legislature or by the electorate at the next elections.
To a specific query, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the Governor was so obliged even when the person recommended
was, to the Governors knowledge, a non-citizen, under-age, a lunatic
or an undischarged insolvent, and the only way in which a non-citizen
or under-age or lunatic or insolvent Chief Minister could be removed
was by a vote of no-confidence in the legislature or at the next
election.
The nomination to appoint a person who is a non-citizen or
under-age or a lunatic or an insolvent as Chief Minister having been
made by the majority party in the legislature, it is hardly realistic to
expect the legislature to pass a no-confidence motion against the Chief
Minister; and the election would ordinarily come after the Chief
Minister had finished his term.
To accept learned counsels submission is to invite disaster. As
an example, the majority party in the legislature could recommend the
appointment of a citizen of a foreign country, who would not be a
member of the legislature and who would not be qualified to be a
member thereof under Article 173, as Chief Minister under Article
164(1) read with (4) to the Governor; and the Governor would be
obliged to comply; the legislature would be unable to pass a no-
confidence motion against the foreigner Chief Minister because the
majority party would oppose it; and the foreigner Chief Minister
would be ensconced in office until the next election. Such a
dangerous such an absurd interpretation of Article 164 has to be
rejected out of hand. The Constitution prevails over the will of the
people as expressed through the majority party. The will of the people
as expressed through the majority party prevails only if it is in accord
with the Constitution. The Governor is a functionary under the
Constitution and is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution and the laws (Article 159). The Governor cannot, in the
exercise of his discretion or otherwise, do anything that is contrary to
the Constitution and the laws. It is another thing that by reason of the
protection the Governor enjoys under Article 361, the exercise of the
Governors discretion cannot be questioned. We are in no doubt at all
that if the Governor is asked by the majority party in the legislature to
appoint as Chief Minister a person who is not qualified to be a
member of the legislature or who is disqualified to be such, the
Governor must, having due regard to the Constitution and the laws, to
which he is subject, decline, and the exercise of discretion by him in
this regard cannot be called in question.
If perchance, for whatever reason, the Governor does appoint as
Chief Minister a person who is not qualified to be a member of the
legislature or who is disqualified to be such, the appointment is
contrary to the provisions of Article 164 of the Constitution, as we
have interpreted it, and the authority of the appointee to hold the
appointment can be challenged in quo warranto proceedings. That the
Governor has made the appointment does not give the appointee any
higher right to hold the appointment. If the appointment is contrary to
constitutional provisions it will be struck down. The submission to the
contrary unsupported by any authority must be rejected.
The judgment of this Court in Shri Kumar Padma Prasad Vs.
Union of India and Others [1992(2) SCC 428] is a case on point. One
K.N. Srivastava was appointed a Judge of the Gauhati High Court by a
warrant of appointment signed by the President of India. Before the
oath of his office could be administered to him, quo warranto
proceedings were taken against him in that High Court. An interim
order was passed directing that the warrant of appointment should not
be given effect to until further orders. A transfer petition was then
filed in this Court and was allowed. This Court, on examination of the
record and the material that it allowed to be placed before it, held that
Srivastava was not qualified to be appointed a High Court Judge and
his appointment was quashed. This case goes to show that even when
the President, or the Governor, has appointed a person to a
constitutional office, the qualification of that person to hold that office
can be examined in quo warranto proceedings and the appointment
can be quashed.
It was submitted that we should not enter a political thicket by
answering the question before us. The question before us relates to
the interpretation of the Constitution. It is the duty of this Court to
interpret the Constitution. It must perform that duty regardless of the
fact that the answer to the question would have a political effect. In
State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [1977(3)
SCC 592], it was said by Bhagwati, J. , But merely because a
question has a political complexion, that by itself is no ground why the
Court should shrink from performing its duty under the Constitution,
if it raises an issue of constitutional determination. Every
constitutional question concerns the allocation and exercise of
governmental power and no constitutional question can, therefore, fail
to be political . So long as a question arises whether
an authority under the Constitution has acted within the limits of its
power or exceeded it, it can certainly be decided by the Court. Indeed
it would be its constitutional obligation to do so. It is necessary to
assert the clearest possible terms, particularly in the context of recent
history, that the Constitution is suprema lex, the paramount law of the
land and there is no department or branch of Government above or
beyond it.
We are satisfied that in the appointment of the second
respondent as Chief Minister there has been a clear infringement of a
constitutional provision and that a writ of quo warranto must issue.
We are not impressed by the submissions that the writ petitions
for quo warranto filed in this Court are outside our jurisdiction
because no breach of fundamental rights has been pleaded therein; that
the appeal against the decision of the Madras High Court in the writ
petition for similar relief filed before it was correctly rejected because
the same issue was pending here; and that the transferred writ petition
for similar relief should, in the light of the dismissal of the writ
petitions filed in this Court, be sent back to the High Court for being
heard. Breach of Article 14 is averred in at least the lead writ petition
filed in this Court (W.P.(C) No.242 of 2001). The writ petition which
was dismissed by the High Court and against which order an appeal is
pending in this Court was filed under Article 226, as was the
transferred writ petition. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to
issue a writ of quo warranto. We propose to pass the order in the lead
writ petition, and dispose of the other writ petitions, the appeal and the
transferred writ petition in the light thereof.
We are not impressed by the submission that we should not
exercise our discretion to issue a writ of quo warranto because the
period of six months allowed by Article 164(4) to the second
respondent would expire in about two months from now and it was
possible that the second respondent might succeed in the criminal
appeals which she has filed. We take the view that the appointment of
a person to the office of Chief Minister who is not qualified to hold it
should be struck down at the earliest.
We are aware that the finding that the second respondent could
not have been sworn in as Chief Minister and cannot continue to
function as such will have serious consequences. Not only will it
mean that the State has had no validly appointed Chief Minister since
14th May, 2001, when the second respondent was sworn in, but also
that it has had no validly appointed Council of Ministers, for the
Council of Ministers was appointed on the recommendation of the
second respondent. It would also mean that all acts of the
Government of Tamil Nadu since 14th May, 2001 would become
questionable. To alleviate these consequences and in the interest of
the administration of the State and its people, who would have acted
on the premise that the appointments were legal and valid, we propose
to invoke the de facto doctrine and declare that all acts, otherwise
legal and valid, performed between 14th May, 2001 and today by the
second respondent as Chief Minister, by the members of the Council
of Ministers and by the Government of the State shall not be adversely
affected by reason only of the order that we now propose to pass.
We are of the view that a person who is convicted for a criminal
offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than
two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under
Article 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.
We, accordingly, order and declare that the appointment of the
second respondent as Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu on
14th May, 2001 was not legal and valid and that she cannot continue to
function as such. The appointment of the second respondent as Chief
Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu is quashed and set aside.
All acts, otherwise legal and valid, performed between 14th
May, 2001 and today by the second respondent acting as Chief
Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, by the members of the Council of
Ministers of that State and by the Government of that State shall not
be adversely effected by reason only of this order.
Writ Petition (C) No.242 of 2001 is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms.
In the light of this order, the other writ petitions, the appeal and
the transferred writ petition stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
..J.
(S.P. Bharucha)
..J.
(Y.K. Sabharwal)
..J.
(Ruma Pal)
September 21, 2001
Brijesh Kumar, J.
Leave granted in SLP � 11763/2001.
I have the advantage of going through the judgment prepared
by Brother Bharucha, J. I am in respectful agreement with the same.
While doing so, I propose to record my views in addition, on a few
points only, in brief, since such points had been argued at some length
and with all vehemence. The points are also no doubt important.
Amongst other points, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the appointment of respondent No.2 as Chief Minister
by the Governor, could not be challenged, in view of the provisions
under Article 361 of the Constitution, providing that the Governor
shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and
performance of the powers and duties of his office. It was also
submitted that in appointing the Chief Minister, the Governor
exercised his discretionary powers, therefore, his action is not
justiciable. Yet another submission is that the Governor had only
implemented the decision of the majority party, in appointing the
respondent No.2 as a Chief Minister i.e. he had only given effect to
the will of the people.
In so far it relates to Article 361 of the Constitution, that the
Governor shall not be answerable to any Court for performance of
duties of his office as Governor, it may, at the very outset, be
indicated that we are considering the prayer for issue of writ of Quo
Warranto against the respondent No.2, who according to the petitioner
suffers from disqualification to hold the public office of the Chief
Minister of a State. A writ of Quo Warranto is a writ which lies
against the person, who according to the relator is not entitled to hold
an office of public nature and is only an usurper of the office. It is
the person, against whom the writ of quo warranto is directed, who is
required to show, by what authority that person is entitled to hold the
office. The challenge can be made on various grounds, including on
the grounds that the possessor of the office does not fulfill the
required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification, which
debars the person to hold such office. So as to have an idea about the
nature of action in a proceedings for writ of quo warranto and its
original form, as it used to be, it would be beneficial to quote from
Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Volume 35A page 648. It
reads as follows:-
The original common-law writ of quo
warranto was a civil writ at the suit of the crown,
and not a criminal prosecution. It was in the nature
of a writ of right by the King against one who
usurped or claimed franchises or liabilities, to
inquire by what right he claimed them. This writ,
however, fell into disuse in England centuries ago,
and its place was supplied by an information in the
nature of a quo warranto, which in its origin was a
criminal method of prosecution, as well to punish
the usurper by a fine for the usurpation of the
franchise, as to oust him or seize it for the crown.
Long before our Revolution, however, it lost its
character as a criminal proceeding in everything
except form, and was applied to the mere purposes
of trying the civil right, seizing the franchise, or
ousting the wrongful possessor, the fine being
nominal only; and such, without any special
legislation to that effect, has always been its
character in many of the states of the Union, and it
is therefore a civil remedy only. Ames v. State of
Kansas, 4 S.Ct.437, 442,111 U.S. 449,28 L.Ed.482;
People v. Dashaway Assn, 24 P.277,278,84
Cal.114.
In the same Volume of Words and Phrases
Permanent Edition at page 647 we find as follows:-
The writ of quo warranto is not a
substitute for mandamus or injunction nor for an
appeal or writ of error, and is not to be used to
prevent an improper exercise of power lawfully
possessed, and its purpose is solely to prevent an
officer or corporation or persons purporting to act
as such from usurping a power which they do not
have. State ex inf.McKittrick v. Murphy,
148.S.W.2d 527,529,530,347 Mo.484. (emphasis
supplied)
Information in nature of quo warranto
does not command performance of official
functions by any officer to whom it may run, since
it is not directed to officer as such, but to person
holding office or exercising franchise, and not for
purpose of dictating or prescribing official duties,
but only to ascertain whether he is rightfully
entitled to exercise functions claimed. State ex inf.
Walsh v. Thatcher, 102 S.W.2d 937,938,340
Mo.865. (emphasis supplied)
In Halsburys Laws of England Fourth Edition Reissue
Volume-I Para 265, Page 368 it is found as follows:-
266. In general. An information in the nature of a
quo warranto took the place of the absolete writ of
quo warranto which lay against a person who
claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to
inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in
order what the right to the office or franchise might
be determined. (Emphasis supplied)
Besides the above, many High Courts as well as this
Court have, taken the view that a writ of quo warranto lies
against a person, who is called upon to establish his legal
entitlement to hold the office in question. Reference:
AIR 1952 Trav. Cochin 66, (1944) 48 Cal.
W.N. 766, AIR 1977 Noc. 246, AIR 1952 Nag.
330, AIR 1945 Cal.249 and AIR 1965 S.C. 491.
In view of the legal position as indicated above it would not be
necessary to implead the appointing authority as respondent in
the proceedings. In the case in hand, the Governor need not be
made answerable to Court. Article 361 of the Constitution
however does not extend any protection or immunity,
vicariously, to holder of an office, which under the law, he is
not entitled to hold. On being called upon to establish valid
authority to hold a public office, if the person fails to do so, a
writ of quo warranto shall be directed against such person. It
shall be no defence to say that the appointment was made by
the competent authority, who under the law is not answerable to
any Court for anything done in performance of duties of his
office. The question of fulfilling the legal requirements and
qualifications necessary to hold a public office would be
considered in the proceedings, independent of the fact as to who
made the appointment and the manner in which appointment
was made. Therefore, Article 361 of the Constitution would be
no impediment in examining the question of entitlement of a
person, appointed by the Governor to hold a public office, who
according to the petitioner/relator is usurper to the office.
The other point which was pressed, with no less
vehemence was that in making the appointment of the Chief
Minister, the Governor acts in exercise of his discretionary
powers. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents
referred to Article 163 of the Constitution to indicate that there
shall be a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister to
aid and advise the Governor in exercise of his functions except
where, under the Constitution the Governor has to discharge his
functions in his discretion. Thereafter, Article 164 of the
Constitution has been referred to indicate that Chief Minister
shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers
shall be appointed by the Governor on the advise of the Chief
Minister. It is submitted that the Governor appoints the Chief
Minister at a time, when there is no Council of Ministers to aid
or advise him. The Governor makes the appointment in his own
discretion. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted
that the party in majority by means of a resolution had chosen
respondent No.2 as their leader. Accordingly, the respondent
No.2 was appointed as the Chief Minister. It has been very
categorically submitted, without any ambiguity, that the
Governor is bound to appoint any person whosoever is chosen
by majority party, as the Chief Minister. This argument cuts
against his own submission made earlier that the Governor
appoints the Chief Minister in exercise of his discretionary
powers. If it is right, that the Governor is bound by the decision
of the majority party, the element of discretion of Governor, in
the matter, disappears. In the scheme of Constitutional
provisions the Governor is to act with the aid and advise of the
Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. He is
bound to act accordingly. The other functions which the
Governor performs in which aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers is not necessary, he acts in his own discretion. He is
not bound by decision/advice of any other agency. It is no
doubt true that even in the written Constitution it is not possible
to provide each and every detail. Practices and conventions do
develop for certain matters. This is how democracy becomes
workable. It is also true that the choice of the majority party
regarding its leader for appointment as Chief Minister is
normally accepted, and rightly. But the contention that in all
eventualities whatsoever the Governor is bound by the decision
of the majority party is not a correct proposition. The Governor
cannot be totally deprived of element of discretion in
performance of duties of his office, if ever any such exigency
may so demand its exercise. The argument about implementing
the will of the people in the context indicated above is
misconceived and misplaced.
----------------------J.
(Brijesh Kumar)
September 21 , 2001
HOME

Question: when did jayalalithaa become cm

In effect, her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect.

Question: who was declared the chief minister of india in 2001

who was declared the chief minister of india in 2001

Question: what happened to jayalalithaa's appointment as chief minister

what happened to jayalalithaa's appointment as chief minister

Question: who unseated jayalalithaa as chief minister

who unseated jayalalithaa as chief minister

Question: who unseats jayalalithaa as cm of india

Question: who declared jayalalithaa as chief minister

who declared jayalalithaa as chief minister

In effect , her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect .

Therefore , technically , she was not the Chief Minister in the period between May 14 , 2001 and September 21 , 2001 ( The Hindu — SC unseats Jayalalithaa as CM , full text of the judgment from the official Supreme Court site ) .

In effect her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect.

Therefore, technically, she was not the Chief Minister in the period between மே 14, 2001 and செப்டம்பர் 21, 2001 (The Hindu — SC unseats Jayalalithaa as CM , full text of the judgment from official Supreme Court site ).

In effect, her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect. Therefore, technically, she was not the Chief Minister in the period between May 14, 2001 and September 21, 2001 (The Hindu — SC unseats Jayalalithaa as CM , full text of the judgment from the official Supreme Court site ).

In effect, her appointment as Chief Minister was declared null and invalid in retrospect.

14 May, 2001 21 September, 2001 2 U.S. U.S. U.S. 9 p.

Question: who was the chief minister of india in 2001

14 May, 2001 21 September, 2001 2 U.S. U.S. U.S. 9 p.

who was the chief minister of india in 2001

Question: who unseated jayalalithaa as cm

Question: when did jayalalithaa become cm of india

21 செப்டம்பர் , 2001

when did jayalalithaa become cm of india

Question: what position did jayalalithaa hold between may 14, 2001 and se

what position did jayalalithaa hold between may 14, 2001 and se

Therefore, technically, she was not the Chief Minister in the period between May 14, 2001 and September 21, 2001 (The Hindu — SC unseats Jayalalithaa as CM , full text of the judgment from the official Supreme Court site ). 14 May, 2001 21 September, 2001 2 U.S. U.S. U.S. 9 p.

Ramsay200 13030.36%5,194,8761980 Election MJ.

மாநில சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் +தமிழ்நாடு சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள் வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம் வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1977 தேர்தல் எம். ஜி.

Municipal Legislative Elections +Government Legislative Elections Year Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board Ramsay200 13030.36%5,194,8761980 Election MJ.

Ramsay177 138.75% 8.39%7,303,0101984 Election MJ.

Ramsay155 337.03% 1.72%8,030,8091989 Election J.J.L.202 10321.77% 15.26%5,247,317 Advanced 1991 Election J.J.L.168 13544.39% 22.62%10,940,9661996 Election J.J.L.168 16021.47% 22.92%5,831,3832001 Election J.J.L.141 12831.44% 9.97%8,815,3872006 Election J.J.L.188 7132.64% 1.20%10,768,559 Advanced2011 Election J.J.L.165 8938.40% 5.7614,150,2892016 Election J.J.L.J.L.14440.7717,26626626626626626626626626

and +

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

புதுச்சேரி சட்டமன்றத் தேர்தல்கள் ஆண்டு கட்சித் தலைவர் போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகள் வென்ற தொகுதிகள் மாற்றம் வாக்கு சதவீதம் வாக்கு வீதம் மொத்த வாக்குகள் முடிவு1974 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி.

ராமச்சந்திரன்21 1227.83%60,8121977 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி. ராமச்சந்திரன்27 230.96% 3.13%69,8731980 தேர்தல்எம். ஜி.

and + Updated Legislative Elections Year Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Board. RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

1418.60% 12.36%45,6231985 ElectionsM.J.R.R.R.R.10 615.75% 2.85%47,5211990 ElectionsJ.J.L.13 318.17% 2.42%76,337 Elections 1991 ElectionsJ.J.L.10 317.34% 0.83%67,7921996 ElectionsJ.J.L.10 312.53% 4.81%57,678 Elections2001 ElectionsJ.J.L.20 No Changes12.56% 0.03%59,9262006 ElectionsJ.J.L.18 No Changes16.04% 3.48%90,699 Elections2011 ElectionsJ.J.L.J.L.213.75% 2.959,960% Elections2016 ElectionsJ.L.10 312.53% 4.81% 57,678 Elections2001 Elections

"ராமச்சந்திரன்18

ராமச்சந்திரன்10

ஜெயலலிதா20மாற்றங்கள்

ஜெயலலிதா18மாற்றங்கள்

தேர்தல்ஒபிஎஸ்

Question: what was the percentage of no changes in the 2011 elections

what was the percentage of no changes in the 2011 elections

Question: how many elections were held in 1985

Question: what was the percentage of changes made to mjr rr.r.10

what was the percentage of changes made to mjr rr.r.10

Question: what was the percentage of people who voted for j.j.l.10 in

what was the percentage of people who voted for j.j.l.10 in

Question: how many people voted for j.j.l.10

Question: how many people voted for j.j.l.13

Question: what was the percentage of no changes in the 1985 elections

what was the percentage of no changes in the 1985 elections

Question: how many elections were there in 1985

and +

and +

and + The House of Representatives Elections of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year The House of Representatives of the Year

and +

and + The General Assembly Elections Year Chairman of the National Assembly Chairman of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assemb

and +

and +

and + Cargo Legislative Elections Year Leadership Competition Modules Winning Modules Change Revenue Revenue House Total Revenue Result1977 ElectionsM.J.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R.R

+Electronic Parliamentary Elections Year Leadership Championship Modules Winning Modules Change Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price

and the worship of the worship of the worship.

The name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother.

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

"பணப்பட்டுவாடா

நிறுத்தப்பட்டது

Question: what is the name of the mother

அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும் , சசிகலா அணிக்கு அதிமுக அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும் தேர்தல் ஆணையம் ஒதுக்கியது

and the worship of the worship of the worship.

The name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother.

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

Question: what happened to the decision if you did not pay for the worship

நிறுத்தப்பட்டது

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

what happened to the decision if you did not pay for the worship

Question: who is the name of the worship god

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

Question: what happened in the case of அனி

தேர்தல் நிறுத்தப்பட்டது .

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

Question: what happens if you do not pay for the worship

"பணப்பட்டுவாடா காரணத்தால்

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

what happens if you do not pay for the worship

Question: what is the name of the worship of god

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

Question: what do you have to pay for worship

, சசிகலா அணிக்கு அதிமுக அம்மா

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

Question: what is the name of the worship god

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

and the worship of the worship of the worship .

The name of the mother , and the name of the mother , and the name of the mother , and the name of the mother , and the name of the mother .

பன்னீர் செல்வம் அணிக்கு அதிமுக புரட்சித் தலைவி அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும், சசிகலா அணிக்கு அதிமுக அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும் தேர்தல் ஆணையம் ஒதுக்கியது. பணப்பட்டுவாடா காரணத்தால் ஆர் கே. நகர் தேர்தல் நிறுத்தப்பட்டது.

பன்னீர் செல்வம் அணிக்கு அதிமுக புரட்சித்

தலைவி அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும், சசிகலா அணிக்கு அதிமுக அம்மா என்ற பெயரையும் தேர்தல் ஆணையம் ஒதுக்கியது.

பணப்பட்டுவாடா காரணத்தால் ஆர் கே.

நகர் தேர்தல் நிறுத்தப்பட்டது.

and the worship of the worship of the worship. The name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother. If you do not pay for it, please. The decision was stopped.

and the worship of the worship of the worship.

The name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother, and the name of the mother.

If you do not pay for it, please.

The decision was stopped.

பணப்பட்டுவாடா காரணத்தால் ஆர் கே.

நகர் தேர்தல் நிறுத்தப்பட்டது.