CJI pulls up Tamil Nadu Governor: He is defying the Supreme Court

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked the Governor to take a decision by tomorrow (Friday) morning, failing which it said it will pronounce a judgment. “Now we will give you overnight. Otherwise we will declare judgement tomorrow.” The court will hear the matter again Friday.

The Madras High Court had recently reversed Ponmudi’s acquittal in a case of disproportionate assets, but on March 13, a two-judge SC bench stayed this saying it would otherwise lead to irreversible consequences.

The court was hearing an application by the TN government, which said that after the SC order Chief Minister M K Stalin had requested the Governor to administer the oath of office to Ponmudi but the Governor, while referring to the grounds on which he was convicted by the HC, refused the request and said “his reinduction while he remains tainted of corruption would be against constitutional morality”.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi said the “last person to talk about constitutional morality and fundamental rights must be someone speaking on behalf of the Governor”. He said it was merely a continuation of the earlier conduct whereby the Governor had refused to sign Bills passed by the state Assembly and referred them to the President.

“The recommendation comes in writing from the Chief Minister, please appoint my minister whose conviction has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Should the CM swear him in by himself… He does the decency of writing to the Governor and he gets this reply. This is the obstructive tactics of the honourable Governor. You already delayed an automatic, ministerial act of swearing in. It’s never happened in 75 years that the Chief Minister recommends somebody whose disqualification is lifted by the Supreme Court and the Governor says this.”

Singhvi added that “primacy of the elected government is part of the basic structure”.

Attorney General R Venkataramani said he will get in touch with the Governor to know what prompted him to do so. He also took serious exception to the TN government approaching the SC for relief by way of an interlocutory application in an already pending petition.

The court, however, did not agree and the CJI asked, “Is that the best argument for the Governor? That I will defend my constitutionally illegal conduct by pointing fingers at how they have come to the court?”

The bench asked the AG who submitted that states were filing suits against the Centre, “What else does a state do? You tell us about that. You tell us what is the remedy.”

The AG said the state seeking relief by way of interlocutory application was an important question and hoped that the court would not close its eyes to it.

The CJI then asked, “Question is what do we close our eyes to? Should we close our eyes to this technical problem which Singhvi faces or do we close our eyes on the virtual breach of the Constitution by the Governor of your state?”

The court said “We are deeply concerned with the manner in which this matter has proceeded at the level of the Governor. To say that the conviction has been stayed but that’s not non-existent. Is this law? Are we governed by the rule of law…?”

The CJI said, “I may have a different view about this particular man (Ponmudi), but that’s not the point. The point is about constitutional law. We have to act in accordance with the Constitution. His conviction has been stayed, and the Chief Minister says he wants to induct him into the Cabinet. That’s parliamentary democracy, the Cabinet form of government.”