The Tamil Nadu Speaker, M. Appavu, is permitted to consider a disqualification petition against former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam based on a Supreme Court ruling from the 2013 case involving the Speaker of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. This ruling suggests that any interested person can alert the Speaker about a member's disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. However, this approach conflicts with the 1986 Rules of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which state that only an MLA can submit such petitions.

In this context, Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Assembly specifies that petitions must be made in writing by other members of the assembly. The term "member" refers specifically to members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The last notable instance of disqualification occurred in September 2017 when action was taken against 18 AIADMK MLAs for allegedly abandoning their party allegiance.

This situation raises questions about compliance with established assembly rules while also reflecting broader legal interpretations regarding who can initiate disqualification proceedings within legislative frameworks.

Original article

The provided text exhibits a multitude of biases, each carefully crafted to present a particular narrative and reinforce certain ideologies. One of the most striking aspects of the text is its cultural and ideological bias, which leans heavily towards centrist or liberal perspectives. The use of phrases such as "established assembly rules" and "broader legal interpretations" creates a sense of authority and legitimacy, implying that the Tamil Nadu Assembly's rules are sacrosanct and that any deviation from them would be inappropriate.

This bias is further reinforced by the text's framing of the issue as a conflict between "compliance with established assembly rules" and "legal interpretations." This binary framing creates a false dichotomy, implying that there are only two possible perspectives on the issue: one that prioritizes adherence to rules and another that prioritizes legal interpretations. This ignores the possibility that there may be other factors at play or alternative perspectives that could be considered.

Furthermore, the text exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases such as "raises questions about compliance" create a sense of concern and unease, implying that something is amiss in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. This language is designed to elicit an emotional response from the reader, rather than presenting a neutral or objective account of events.

The text also demonstrates selection and omission bias by excluding certain facts or viewpoints from consideration. For example, there is no mention of potential benefits to allowing non-MLAs to submit disqualification petitions or any alternative perspectives on this issue. By omitting these viewpoints, the text presents a skewed narrative that reinforces its own biases.

Structural and institutional bias are also evident in the text's presentation of authority figures. The Speaker, M. Appavu, is portrayed as having absolute authority in determining disqualification petitions, with no mention of potential checks or balances on this power. This reinforces an implicit defense of existing systems of authority within legislative frameworks.

Confirmation bias is also present in the text's uncritical acceptance of Supreme Court rulings as authoritative sources. There is no evaluation or critique presented regarding these rulings' potential biases or limitations; instead, they are presented as unassailable truth.

Framing and narrative bias can be seen in the story structure presented by the text. The narrative begins with an introduction to M. Appavu's decision to consider disqualification petitions against O.Panneerselvam based on Supreme Court rulings from 2013 case involving Orissa Legislative Assembly Speaker . However , it quickly shifts focus towards highlighting conflict between established assembly rule (Rule 6) which states only MLA can submit such petition ,and broader legal interpretation regarding who can initiate disqualification proceedings within legislative frameworks .This shift creates an impression among readers about how complex this situation has become due largely because both sides have valid arguments but ultimately leads nowhere except reinforcing existing power dynamics .

When analyzing sources cited within this piece ,it becomes clear they primarily come from Western-centric publications like Supreme Court judgments which reflect dominant ideologies prevalent globally especially those related governance structures .There isn't much representation from diverse backgrounds thereby creating another layer where voices get marginalized further solidifying structural inequality embedded within narratives constructed around institutions governing society .

Lastly ,temporal bias manifests itself through selective presentation historical context surrounding similar cases handled previously under same jurisdiction without delving deeper into complexities involved during those instances leading readers assume recent developments follow same pattern without questioning underlying assumptions driving conclusions drawn