‘You have acted in haste with scant regard to the Constitution’: TN CM Stalin writes to Governor R N Ravi

Stalin’s strong-worded rejoinder said he had received two letters from the governor on Thursday; one at around 7 pm informing him about the dismissal of Balaji, and another letter at around 11.45 pm informing him of the decision to keep the previous letter in “abeyance”.

“Though your letters require only an outright disregard, I am writing to you to clarify both the facts and law on the issue on hand,” he wrote.

“Firstly, let me place on record that the aid and advice of the chief minister and the cabinet was neither sought nor given for both letters. Secondly, the fact that within a few hours after you issued such a strongly worded first letter, even alluding to ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery’, a not so veiled threat, you withdrew it ‘to seek the opinion of the Attorney General’,” Stalin wrote. “This shows that you had not even taken a legal opinion before such an important decision. The fact that it needed the Home Minister’s intervention to direct you to take a legal opinion on this matter itself shows that you have acted in haste with scant regard to the Constitution of India,” Stalin further said.

Reminding Ravi that his cabinet and MLAs enjoy the confidence of the people “who are the ultimate sovereign,” Stalin wrote that “high constitutional authorities like governor while dealing with an elected government must act with dignity and not stoop to levelling veiled unsubstantiated threats about ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery’”.

In his letter, Stalin explained the legal difference between three types of people involved in legal proceedings: those under investigation, those who have been charged with a crime, and those who have been convicted by a court. Stalin wrote that a person can only be disqualified from being a minister or legislator if they have been convicted, not just investigated or charged.

He supported this claim by referring to a legal precedent set by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India. This precedent confirms that a person only becomes disqualified from holding office from the date of conviction, not from the date they are investigated or charged.

Regarding Balaji, Stalin stated that he has only been arrested for investigation, and no charges have been filed against him yet.

Stalin also referred to another Supreme Court judgment (Manoj Narula v. Union of India), which suggests that it is up to the Prime Minister or chief minister’s judgment to decide if a person under investigation or with charges filed against them should continue as a minister.

“With regard to the allegations of assault and other associated incidents relating to the income tax department officials, cases have been registered and action has been taken in accordance with law. Your allegations about the same amounts to interfering with the administration of justice since the said issue is seized of by the court and investigating authorities,” Stalin wrote, adding that Ravi’s apprehension that Balaji may interfere with the investigation is unfounded and baseless.

“I once again reiterate the Constitutional provisions about removal of a minister. Under Article 164(1), the Governor appoints and removes ministers only on the advice of the chief minister. The Governor has no power to decide who should or should not be part of the Cabinet. That is the sole prerogative of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers are in turn answerable to the elected Legislative Assembly under Article 164(2),” he wrote.

“I reiterate that you have no power to dismiss my ministers. That is the sole prerogative of an elected chief minister. Your unconstitutional communication dismissing my minister without my advice is void ab initio and non-est in law and hence has been disregarded. This is for your kind information and records,” Stalin wrote.