Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s reference recently to the incident in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on March 25, 1989, in which the then Chief Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition were allegedly attacked, rekindled memories in many of the pandemonium the House had witnessed. But what is overlooked in the discourse is that the Assembly had eventually amended its rules, even imposing a restriction on the Speaker. The restriction, as stipulated in a sub-rule of Rule 283 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules*, is that “the proceedings of the House approved and published under the orders of the Speaker shall not be modified or removed either by the same Speaker or by any of the Speakers succeeding him or by the House or any new matter included or annexed to such proceedings, for any reason whatsoever.”
A day for Budget
March 25, 1989, was set apart for the then Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, also holding the portfolio of Finance, to present the Budget. He was out of power for 13 years. At the same time, the political situation was quite tense. A row had broken out over the events following the police searches on the premises of M. Natarajan, then an adviser of Jayalalithaa and husband of her confidante V.K. Sasikala, and his subsequent arrest. On the midnight of March 18, newspaper offices received copies of a statement, purporting to be from Jayalalithaa (in those days, there was no extra ‘a’ to her name), announcing her decision to “quit politics”. The party’s deputy general secretary, S.D. Somasundaram, had immediately disputed the veracity of the letter. He hinted at the involvement of the police in the circulation of the letter, an allegation denied by Commissioner of Police for Chennai P. Dorai, according to materials provided by The Hindu Archives. Besides, the then Speaker, M. Tamizhkudimagan, who got the “letter” of her resignation from the House, had sought a clarification from Jayalalithaa. She had immediately denied having sent any such letter.
As soon as the Assembly convened on March 25, Congress deputy leader Kumari Anandan complained against the police for having acted “undemocratically and in a high-handed manner” against Jayalalithaa. She also demanded Karunanidhi’s resignation alleging he had committed “criminal acts”. According to a report published by The Hindu on March 26, 1989, “When Ms. Jayalalitha repeated that the person charged with ‘criminal acts’ should not be allowed to present the Budget, the Chief Minister was seen saying something which was inaudible.” Then, the pandemonium began with the Chief Minister, Local Administration Minister Veerapandi S. Arumugam and Jayalalithaa getting attacked. The report described the situation as follows: “Today’s action featured both sides making use as missiles anything that one could lay one’s hands on within the Assembly — mikes, paper weights, Speaker’s bell, pad and the heavy bundles of Budget papers.”
A ring of protection
As for the attacks on the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the report said an AIADMK member pushed the centre table dividing the treasury benches and the Opposition; in the impact, the small podium kept on the centre table in front of the Chief Minister could be seen hitting Karunanidhi and making him “lose his balance”. Several of his party colleagues, including Ministers, formed a ring, protecting Karunanidhi.
The Speaker adjourned the House and the Chief Minister was escorted out by his partymen and the watch and ward staff. “The fight, however, went on. Mr. Moopanar [G.K. Moopanar, then Leader of the Congress Legislature Party] was sitting motionless and Ms. Jayalalitha was seen sunk in her seat with hands on her head. Tears were seen welling in her eyes. After a while, she attempted to go out in the melee, a DMK Minister was seen holding the end of her saree. As she moved towards the back benches, the saree fell off her shoulders. Mr. Thirunavukkarasu [now in the Congress and known as Su. Thirunavukkarasar; then in the AIADMK as the deputy floor leader] pulled the saree’s end from the other person and helped her set it,” the report added.
‘Interpolations’ in records
Exactly three years later, the then Speaker, R. Muthiah (who later joined the DMK), ruled as “fraud” the proceedings of the Assembly as recorded on March 25. 1989. A report, carried by this paper on March 27, 1992, said, “There were interpolations in the records of the proceedings which, the Speaker said, were in contravention of parliamentary practices and convention. He held the changes as done with an ulterior motive to conceal the truth and also the murderous attack on Ms Jayalalitha.” Muthiah also said his ruling would go as an annexure to the record printed and circulated during the DMK government (1989-91).
In April 1997, during the DMK regime, Speaker P.T.R. Palanivel Rajan, responding to demands for expunging the denigrating references to former Governor M. Channa Reddy in the previous Assembly (1991-96), ruled that there could be no expunction even if they contained disparaging remarks against the Governor. However, he suggested that the House pass a resolution condemning the “indecent” references to Reddy.
Appendix ordered removed
While delivering an elaborate ruling interspersed with case studies, Rajan referred to the “tampering of records” pertaining to the violent incidents in the Assembly in 1989 and recommended an amendment of the House rules to insulate the Assembly records from, what a report of this paper on April 30, 1997 called, “whims and fancies of the presiding officers”. He also ordered the removal of the appendix added by his predecessor to the records of the proceedings of the House during 1989-91, which, he said, was to show that the State should not create a bad precedent for others. It was then that the Rule 283 (1) was amended.
(*Corrected up to August 23, 2021 and as available on the Assembly website)
