Thursday, Aug 08, 2002
Thursday, Aug 08, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By A. Subramani
(The controversial Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 was notified on June 4, following which Mr. Stalin lost his Mayorship on June 18. When a petition challenging the law came up before it, the First Bench granted a limited stay, ruling that no election should be held for the post till the case was disposed). Representing the Union Law Ministry, which was included as a respondent, Mr. Gopalan said when a vested right was sought to be taken away, the law should expressly mention that it was to take retrospective effect, not merely through necessary implication. ``Law must speak expressly''. On the Advocate-General, N.R. Chandran's argument that the Act was only "retroactive" and not retrospective in nature, Mr. Gopalan said, ``retroactivity cannot be used to knock out vested rights. The principle of retroactivity applies only to declaratory legislation, which is a law enacted to explain an earlier legislation''. Earlier, Mr. Chandran contended that the petitioner, advocate S. Udhayakumar, had no locus standi as he could not fight the case on behalf of someone else (Mr. Stalin) through a public interest litigation. Reiterating his stance that there was absolutely nothing in the amended Act in contravention of the Constitutional provisions, he said a statutory right could be taken away through another legislation by the Government, which was competent to enact appropriate laws. Moreover, the person directly affected by the legislation is not before the court, Mr. Chandran said and pointed out that Mr. Stalin had filed an affidavit `distancing himself' from the proceedings. In his reply, senior counsel K.M. Vijayan, argued that a voter had every right to expect his candidate to last for a full term, unless he attracted any statutory disqualification. Even Rule 77 of the TN Municipal Corporation Rules enabled a voter, besides the candidate, to move election petitions, he added. Pointing out that the impugned Act was not an `Act in persona', which required the aggrieved person to challenge it in court, Mr. Vijayan said it was an `Act in rem' where PILs could be preferred. `No bar on second term' The First Bench also heard a petition, which sought to disqualify Mr. Stalin on the ground that as per Section 30 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, an outgoing Chennai Mayor cannot seek a consecutive second term in office. In his petition, which came up on October 12, Sridhar Kumar alleged that it was a fundamental statutory disability on an incumbent Mayor. Countering the grounds, the former Government Pleader, Viduthalai, said the only available avenue to oppose the election was an election petition as provided for under Section 54 of the MCMC Act. Eligibility, qualification and disqualification can be grounds only for an election petition, he said. He added that Section 30 was not applicable to ordinary election. After day-long proceedings, the First Bench of the Chief Justice B. Subhashan Reddy and Justice D. Murugesan reserved its orders on both the petitions without mentioning the date.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
