Pandiarajan has alleged that the proceedings during the

February 18 vote were conducted in a "highly arbitrary and partisan manner, in utter violation of democratic norms and principles of natural justice". February 18 vote were

conducted in a "highly arbitrary and partisan manner, in utter violation of democratic norms and principles of natural justice". "The request for secret ballot to decide the

confidence motion on February 18 was rejected by the Speaker without any justifiable basis especially when there were specific averments and complaints that the MLAs belonging to the AIADMK

(including some MLAs out of the group of 11 MLAs headed by the O Panneerselvam) were placed under virtual house arrest," the plea said. It alleged the MLAs were under "extreme

duress" and their affirmative vote during the proceedings on the February 18 was obtained "under the threat of force, fraud and coercion." Pandiarajan has claimed that 122

MLAs belonging to AIADMK were "forcibly held" as "hostage" at the Golden Bay Resort from February 8 till right before the voting on February 18. He said the "undue

haste" with which the proceedings took place and "complete lack of transparency and propriety" shown by the Speaker in continuing with the voting process was "arbitrary,

malafide, and ought to be quashed". "The conduct of the Speaker is not only violative of freedom of expression of the MLAs but such a right has to be kept secret, more so in the

circumstances under which such a vote was mandated, and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside, and a fresh vote through secret ballot be directed in order to ensure that the democratic

principles are upheld," Pandiarajan's has said in the petition. He has claimed that Panneerselvam had given a representation on February 19 to the Governor of Tamil Nadu requesting

him not to approve the February 18 resolution of the Assembly and also urged him to fix another date for a fresh vote of confidence by secret ballot. Pandiarajan said since the Governor has

"not taken any steps" on the representation till date, he is "constrained to file the instant petition" in the apex court. The petitioner has said that he has directly

approached the apex court "without availing the jurisdiction of the High Court" as the issues raised in the petition "have a pan India ramification and require an

authoritative pronouncement" by the highest court of the country. "Such a law declared by this court would act as a guiding beacon to all the states and union territories of this

country and therefore it is only appropriate that this court adjudicates the present writ petition," he has said. (This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is

auto-generated from an agency feed.)