EVALUATION OF N>RANGASAMY GOVERNMENT OF PAST

EVALUATION OF N.RANGASAMY's MISRULE OF PONDICHERRY

APPAPAITHYAM SWAMY, the ghost saint who guides all the actions of Chief Minister N.Rangasamy and Chief Minister's personal astrologer Kurinjipaadi Swamigal have created a constitutional crisis in Puducherry. West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil nadu and Assam which went to polls along with Puducherry had proven their majority in the floor of the assembly and had fulfledged cabinets functioning. But the Tainted Lt.Governor of Puducherry Iqbal Singh had invited N.Rangasamy of All India NR Congress which exists only in Puducherry on the basis of 15 plus one independent's letter saying in the 30 member legislative assembly N.Rangasamy has majority. Rangasamy who won two seats resigned one seat creating a vacancy and thus current strength of the assembly is 29 only. Since May 13 till July 1 he had not proven his strength in the floor of the assembly. Till June 8 th he was LONE cabinet, and how come a Lone Man be construed as cabinet is for Supreme Court to decide. How long without proving majority a Chief Minister can function it is for Supreme Court to decide. After inducting 4 in cabinet and none were allocated portfolios, and media reports say these 4 Ministers without cabinet do not have the right even to choose their private secretaries.

Without proving majority N.Rangasamy went to choose his Speaker and opposition was not consulted at all over his choice as is customary in Indian democracy. He thought though he enjoys only 14 member support, opposition with 14 members will not join together because of DMK-AIADMK divide. But on common issue whole opposition with 14 members boycotted yesterday's Speaker's election. The opposition benches were empty as all televisions screened it nation knows, that Chief Minister has only 14 member support. In case of assembly functioning each and every time Speaker had to cast his casting vote and how many times Speaker can bail out a minority government is for Supreme Court to decide.

The Tainted Lt.Governor Iqbal Singh should have sought legal opinion  from Law Ministry before conducting the Election of Speaker to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and giving sufficient time limit for legislators to decide.Unprecedented happenings in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly had necessitated for seeking legal opinion from Union Law Ministry on holding Election to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly but Lt.Governor created a constitutional crisis.

Election results were out on 13 th May 2011. All India N.R.Congress won 15 seats and All India Anna DMK bagged 5 seats. This pre-election alliance if had staked to form Government the strength would have been 20 in the 30 member assembly reflecting majority in the floor of the assembly. But All India N.R.Congress broke its pre-election alliance and indulged in horse trading securing the support of lone independent and the leader of All India N.R.Congress was invited to form the Government thinking All India N.R.Congress had 15 seats plus 1 independent gives them majority in the 30 member legislative assembly. But Chief Minister who won from 2 constituencies resigned from one thereby reducing his party to 15 member support only. As constitutional authority Lt.Governor should have given shortest time to prove the majority in the floor of the assembly. Even the number 16 got reduced to 15 with Chief Minister without a cabinet, at that point of time , resigning one out of two seats he had won. Thus the effective strength of the group Lt.Governor invited to form Government was just 15 with independent .This created a constitutional crisis. The Government does not have a MAJORITY. Under such circumstances it had to elect a Speaker. Chief Minister in suspense  announced on 29 th June Speaker’s election will be held. Let me quote the procedure in Parliament/ States/ and Union Territories with regard to election of a Speaker.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER AND DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS.

8. Election of Speaker – (1) The election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Governor may fix, and the Secretary shall send to every member a notice thereof: [Art. 178.]

Provided that the date so fixed shall, in the case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be within fifteen days from:

a. The date of the occurrence of the vacancy, if the Assembly is at that time sitting and

b. The date on which the Assembly first meets thereafter, if it is not so sitting.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER, DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS Chapter III of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly

9. Election of Speaker: [1] The Election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Administrator may fix and the Secretary shall send every member notice thereof:

Provided that the date so fixed shall in case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be not beyond 15 days from…….

So identical provisions for States and Union Territories exist. But with regard to State , Governor had to decide, but in Union Territory Administer had to decide but after taking clearance from the President of India acting on the advice of the Home Ministry..

The constitutional crisis in this Union Territory had never been envisaged when these laws were drafted and passed. These Acts and Rules are silent on HOW MUCH TIME should be given to CONVENE THE ASSEMBLY AND ELECT A SPEAKER. It is also silent on HOW LONG A GOVERNMENT WITH NO MAJORITY DELAY THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER.  Speaker’s election is held and ruling combine with 15 member strength elected its Speaker and got reduced to 14 numbers. Combined opposition strength is 14. And all times Speaker cannot cast casting vote to save the Government of the day.

Having broken the pre-election alliance the Chief Minister designate with a Cabinet with no portfolio is wooing the Main Opposition through media and NO NEW ALLAINCE RE-STRUCTURING HAD TAKEN PLACE. Everything is in fluid state. Everything is ambiguous. Horse trading is on.

The Lt.Governor of Puducherry  turned blind eye to the horse trading that took place to ensure NR Congress nominee win Speaker’s post. In hurried state Administrator i.e Lt.Governor  fixed the date for Speaker’s election  leaving room for following questions arise. We are not sure on how without proving strength in floor of the assembly one man can rule without Cabinet for some days and with cabinet without allocation of portfolios for some days and how long can a Chief Minister re-negotiate alliance or resort to horse trading infringing the rights of the Elected Members of this Legislative Assembly.

Since these issues which are silent in Acts and which has no precedence in India had landed our Union Territory in a constitutional crisis and we hope Lt.Governor will seek the advice of the Union Law Ministry and Attorney General through the President of India  or Supreme Court had to be approached and we will do it.

THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Bill, 1975 which was enacted as the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Article 71 of the Constitution provides that disputes arising out of the election of the President or Vice-President shall be decided by the Supreme Court. The same article provides that matters relating to their election shall be regulated by a parliamentary law. So far as the Prime Minister and the Speaker are concerned, matters relating to their election are regulated by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this Act the High Court has jurisdiction to try an election petition presented against either of them.

So the constitution provides scope for judicial intervention, but it would be unnecessary if Administrator acts on the advice of Union Law Ministry and every step taken in this situation must be measured one with wider consultation with Union Government.

“The life of the Assembly is 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting beginning with the address of the Governor under Article 176 (1), unless sooner dissolved. The expiry of the said period of 5 years operates as dissolution of the Assembly”. Life of the assembly itself had to begin with Governor’s address, unfortunately precedents practiced since independence is taken for a ride here ever since recent election results were out. A Government in Coma keeps Assembly in Suspense depriving people’s representatives to function as legislators for which public have given their mandate.

In Canada when the House convenes on the first day of a new Parliament or on any day when the House is to elect a Speaker, the election of a Speaker must be the first order of business and has precedence over all other matters. Only after a Speaker has been elected is the House properly constituted to conduct its business

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA & GARWE JA HARARE, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 & MARCH 10, 2011

T Hussein, for the appellants Ms C Damiso, for the first respondent M Chaskalson SC, for the second respondent

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein PATEL J dismissed the appellants' application to have set aside the election of the second respondent as the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Speaker"). The appellants, as the applicants in the court a quo, sought the following relief set out in the draft order:

"WHEREUPON after perusing the documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is hereby declared that: - 1. The election of (the) second respondent as the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe on 25 August 2008 is null and void and set aside.

These examples of other countries prove the importance of the Office of the Speaker and even the Highest Courts of other countries intervening to protect the sanctity of the Speaker’s post. Under such global scenario, the Administrator failed to seek the advice, guidance and instructions of the Union Law Ministry on how to proceed to fix a date for Speaker’s post and such a Speaker will be a prisoner of circumstances with bailing his government with casting vote at all occasions, since without casting vote the government will not sail. In this constitutional crisis now only Supreme Court had to lay down conditions.

If the opposition with 14 members had fielded a candidate for Speaker's post then division would have been the best way to ascertain the wishes of legislators over the choice of Speaker. But that failed since 10 crores were demanded for contesting and opposition dropped pursuing such proposal.

The Speaker’s election took place . The present Chief Minister with 14 members in his party including one independent supporting  put up a candidate for Speaker’s post. The combined opposition has 14 votes and the ruling combine had 14 votes as proven by combined opposition boycotting the declaration of Speaker's election.. The ruling combine banks upon cross voting in routine to run the government and Lt.Governor should not be a party to endorse horse trading subverting democracy, a process which began with one man without majority occupying the Chief Minister’s chair. Speaker got elected with 14 in ruling side and 14 in opposition side. Though opposition is divided suppose on fuel hike or any common issue of people then on each occasion the Speaker had to exercise his casting vote. Never in India in any legislature such precedent exists. MORE THAN THAT CHIEF MINISTER HAS NO MAJORITY AND CANNOT CONTINUE IN OFFICE. SUPREME COURT MUST SUO MOTO TAKE NOTE OF THIS AND ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF THIS ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LT.GOVERNOR WHO VIOLATED CONSTITUTION.

In parliamentary procedure, a division of the assembly (also division of the house or simply division) is a voting method in which the members of the assembly take a rising vote (stand up) or go to different parts of the chamber, literally dividing into groups indicating a vote in favour of or in opposition to a motion on the floor. A division of the assembly is often undertaken upon a motion, It can be contrasted with voice voting and electronic voting.

This was the method used to decide motions in the Roman Senate (and was occasionally used in democratic Athens).

In the Australian House of Representatives divisions follow a form similar to that of the United Kingdom, but the requirements are generally more stringent. For instance, a Member in the Chamber when the tellers are appointed must vote, while a Member not then present may not. Furthermore, members must vote in accordance to their voice votes. The voice vote is held as in the British House of Commons. If a Member objects, then the division bells are rung throughout Parliament House. When not less than four minutes have elapsed since the question was first put, the Speaker orders that the doors to the Chamber be locked, and directs that the Ayes proceed to the right side of the Chamber, and that the Noes proceed to the left. Members then take seats on the appropriate side of the Chamber, rather than entering a lobby, and then the Speaker appoints tellers for each side, unless fewer than five Members are seated on one side, in which case the Speaker calls off the division and declares the result for the side with the greater number of Members. If the division is still on, the tellers count and record the names of the Members. The Speaker announces the result, but does not himself vote unless there is an equality of votes.

In the Australian Senate, a procedure similar to that of the House of Representatives is followed. The voice vote is taken, and, if two Senators object, a division is held. Senators take seats in the right or left of the Chamber as in the House, and the President of the Senate appoints one teller for each side to record the votes. The President may vote by stating to the Senate the side on which he intends to vote. If the result of the division is an equality of votes, then the motion is in all cases disagreed to.

The procedure used in the House of Commons of Canada is similar to that in the British House of Commons, with a few differences. The Speaker reads the question aloud, and then asks, "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?" If anyone dissents, the Speaker then states "all those in favour of the motion will please say yea." After the cries of 'yea', the Speaker says "all those opposed will please say nay," and all members opposed to the question cry out 'nay' all at once. The Speaker then announces his opinion of the outcome of the vote. If five or more MPs challenge the Speaker's opinion, a formal division follows.

A formal division is invoked by the Speaker asking to "call in the members." Bells are rung throughout the Parliament Buildings for either 15 or 30 minutes to allow all present MPs time to enter the chamber and take their seats. The division begins with the whips from both the government and the official opposition bowing to the Speaker and each other before returning to their seats. There are no division lobbies in the House of Commons, so each member votes by simply standing up from his or her seat. "Yea" votes are recorded first, followed by the "Nay" votes, on the Speaker's order. Finally, the clerk of the house reads the result of the vote aloud to the Speaker.

In the German Bundestag, when it is unclear what the majority wants, the president can call for the so-called Hammelsprung (literally, sheep herd). In this voting procedure, the MPs leave the plenary hall and re-enter through one of three doors designated for "yes", "no", or "abstention".

According to the Duden dictionary, the expression refers to the MPs grouping themselves like sheep behind their respective bellwether(s) before re-entering the chamber.[1] The procedure was introduced in 1874 by a Reichstag vice president. In 1894 the architect of the new Reichstag building made a reference to the Hammelsprung: above the door for "yes", he depicted Ulysses and his friends escaping from Polyphemus.

Republic of Ireland In Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the procedure for divisions is specified by standing orders 68–75.[2] The Ceann Comhairle (chair) puts the question and TDs (deputies) present say the Irish word Tá or Níl respectively if they agree or disagree.[3] The Ceann Comhairle then gives an opinion on the voice vote; a TD may demand a division by calling Vótáil ("vote").[4] If fewer than ten TDs call for a division, the Ceann Comhairle asks them to rise in their places; their names are recorded in the journal but the original decision stands. Otherwise the Ceann Comhairle calls Vótáil, which starts the voting process. The division bell sounds around Leinster House and the adjoining Oireachtas buildings, calling TDs to the chamber to vote. The bells ring for six minutes[citation needed] and the doors to the chamber are locked after a further four minutes.The Ceann Comhairle then appoints two tellers for each side and deputies present are given one minute to vote. Voting is usually electronic, with deputies pressing either the Tá or Níl button on their desks. After the voting time has concluded a Division Paper recording the result and each TD's vote is signed by the four tellers and given to the Ceann Comhairle, who declares the result. Electronic voting was introduced in 2002.[5] The traditional practice of voting by physically entering division lobbies is retained for some symbolically important votes: motion of no confidence, election of the Ceann Comhairle, and nomination of Taoiseach and cabinet ministers. A group of at least 20 TDs may demand a non-electronic repeat of an electronic vote, a tactic which Opposition parties sometimes use to increase media coverage of major votes. Notably, in 1969 when Jack Lynch sought the nomination of the Dáil to be appointed Taoiseach by the President, after the division had been called and the doors locked, the bells continued to ring and several deputies Fianna Fáil deputies subsequently entered the chamber through an unlocked door. After other deputies objected, The Ceann Comhairle called the division again. Lynch won the nomination 74 votes to 66.[6] In Seanad Éireann, the upper house, a similar procedure is laid out by standing orders 56–63.[7] The relayed sound of the bell for Seanad divisions differs from that of the Dáil bell.

United Kingdom In the House of Commons, the Speaker says "The Question is that…", then states the question. Next, he says, "As many as are of that opinion say Aye." Then, following shouts of "Aye", he says, "of the contrary, No," and similar shouts of "No" may follow. If one side clearly has more support, the Speaker then announces his opinion as to the winner, stating, for example, "I think the Ayes have it". Otherwise, the Speaker declares a division.Any member may object to the Speaker's determination. If the Speaker feels that the division is unnecessary, he may first ask those who support his determination of the voice vote to rise, and then ask those who oppose the opinion to rise. Then, the Speaker may either declare that his ruling on the voice vote stands, or proceed to a division.If a division is to be taken, the Speaker first states, "Division! Clear the Lobbies!" The Division Bell then sounds across the Parliamentary Estate as well as several buildings in the vicinity, such as restaurants and pubs, and Members' Lobby in front of the Commons' Chamber is cleared of strangers, primarily journalists who have access to the Lobby. Division bells notify any members not currently in the chamber that a vote is about to start. A recent development has been the use of pagers and mobile phones by party whips, to summon members from further afield.One minute into the division the Speaker puts the question to the House again. It is often the Whips who answer the question this time after which the Speaker announces the Tellers, two (one Government MP, one Opposition MP) for the Ayes and two for the Noes. Tellers are usually whips, but on occasions can be rebel MPs, or even frontbench spokesmen (in the case of the Liberal Democrats).MPs have to walk through the two Division Lobbies on either side of the House and give their name to the Division Clerks at the end of the respective Lobbies to vote. They are then counted by the Tellers as they leave the Lobby. The Whips keep check on which MPs enter which Lobby and try and persuade them to enter the Lobby that the Party would like them to enter.

Whips have historically been brutal to Backbenchers to secure their vote. There have been cases where Members of Parliament were wheeled from far afield to vote for the government of crucial vote. Former MP Joe Ashton remembered a case from the dying days of James Callaghan's government: I remember the famous case of Leslie Spriggs, the then Member for St. Helens. We had a tied vote and he was brought to the House in an ambulance having suffered a severe heart attack. The two Whips went out to look in the ambulance and there was Leslie Spriggs laid there as though he was dead. I believe that John Stradling Thomas said to Joe Harper, "How do we know that he is alive?" So he leaned forward, turned the knob on the heart machine, the green light went around, and he said, "There, you've lost - it's 311." That is an absolutely true story. It is the sort of nonsense that used to happen. No one believes it, but it is true.[8]

Originally, there was but one lobby. In A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Thomas Jefferson writes: The one party goes forth, and the other remains in the House. This has made it important which go forth, and which remain; because the latter gain all the indolent, the indifferent and inattentive. Their general rule therefore is, that those who give their votes for the preservation of the orders of the House, shall stay in, and those who are for introducing any new matter or alteration, or proceeding contrary to the established course, are to go out.After the fire of 1834, the House of Commons Chamber was rebuilt. At that time, a second lobby was added.Eight minutes after the question has been put for the first time, the Speaker declares, "Lock the Doors." The lobby entrances are locked, and only those within the Lobbies may continue to vote.After all members have voted in the lobbies, the vote totals are written on a card and the numbers are read out to the House by the Tellers. The Speaker then announces these numbers a second time, announcing the final result by saying 'The Ayes/Noes have it, the Ayes/Noes have it'. The Speaker himself does not vote, except in the case of a tie and then only strictly in accordance to precedent. This means that the Speaker will let vote in accordance with these principles:

Legislation remains unchanged unless there is a majority in favour of amendment,

Legislation is allowed to proceed to the next stage unless there is a majority in favour of rejection, and

All other motions are rejected unless there is a majority in favour of passage.

Members may signify, but not record, an abstention by remaining in their seats during the division.

It is stipulated that all Members of Parliament are required to stay in or around the premises of the House of Commons until the main business of the day has ended, however long that may be. In the unlikely event that fewer than forty members voted in the division, the division is ignored, the question at hand is postponed until the next sitting, and the House proceeds to the next business.

The nature of divisions in the House of Commons is one which traditionally could go on well into the night, sometimes past midnight. However, in 2000 the House introduced, on an experimental basis, the procedure of "Deferred Divisions." Essentially, some divisions are delayed until the next Wednesday. The procedure is used for very few matters; most divisions still occur normally.

There have been suggestions that electronic voting may be easier and quicker to do than physically going through a division lobby. However, MPs have often found that a division is the best way to interact for senior members of the government. And it can be considered a way to sort out problems for the Member's constituents.

In the United States Congress, divisions are used, but not in the same manner as in the British Parliament. In Congress, lobbies are not used, and the division is not a final determination of the question. The vote is first taken by voice vote, as is the case in Parliament. Then, any member may demand a division. If a division is demanded, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate (or President pro tempore) asks those voting Yea to rise and remain standing until counted, and then asks those voting Nay to do the same. Thereafter, a recorded vote may, under the provisions of the US Constitution, be forced upon the demand of one-fifth of the members present. In the Senate, the recorded vote is accomplished by the Clerk's call of the Roll. In the House, a Roll Call may be used, as may electronic voting devices.

India : Election of Speaker

In the Lok Sabha, the lower House of the Indian Parliament, both Presiding Officers—the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker- are elected from among its members by a simple majority of members present and voting in the House. As such, no specific qualifications are prescribed for being elected the Speaker. The Constitution only requires that Speaker should be a member of the House. But an understanding of the Constitution and the laws of the country and the rules of procedure and conventions of Parliament is considered a major asset for the holder of the office of the Speaker. The election of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is an important event in the life of the House. One of the first acts of a newly constituted House is to elect the Speaker. Usually, a member belonging to the ruling party is elected the Speaker. A healthy convention, however, has evolved over the years whereby the ruling party nominates its candidate after informal consultations with the Leaders of other Parties and Groups in the House. This convention ensures that once elected, the Speaker enjoys the respect of all sections of the House. IN PUDUCHERRY THIS CONVENTION HAD NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

There are also instances when members not belonging to the ruling party or coalition were elected to the office of the Speaker. Once a decision on the candidate is taken, her name is normally proposed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. If more than one notice is received, these are entered in the order of receipt. The Speaker pro term presides over the sitting in which the Speaker is elected, if it is a newly constituted House. If the election falls later in the life of a Lok Sabha the Deputy Speaker presides. The motions which are moved and duly seconded are put one by one in the order in which they are moved, and decided, if necessary, by division. If any motion is carried, the person presiding shall, without putting the latter motions, declare that the member proposed in the motion which has been carried has been chosen as the Speaker of the House. After the results are announced, the Speaker-elect is conducted to the Chair by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She is then felicitated by Leaders of all Political Parties and Groups in the House to which she replies in a thanks-giving speech. And from then the new Speaker takes over.

In 2011 in Andhra Pradesh Assembly Speaker chose from secret ballot to division of votes as best way and transparent way to find our the majority with public knowing where stood where and for whom.

IN VIEW OF GLOBAL PRACTICE IN ALL DEMOCRACIES AND IN VIEW OF PRECEDENTS IN INDIA BOTH IN PARLIAMENT AND ASSEMBLY, LT.GOVERNOR HAD FAILED IN ALLOWING SPEAKERS ELECTION WITHOUT PROVING MAJORITY. THEREBY EVEN BY DIVISION THE STRENGTH COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED.

Hence Supreme Court must set right the discrepencies in implementation of UT Act and as immediate measure sack the proxy rule by dead saints and astrologers, whose rule is not permissible under Indian constitution.

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

Date :1.07.2011