Madras High Court Advises Tamil Nadu CM on Continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji
The Madras High Court, in a recent judgment, has left the decision to Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister MK Stalin regarding the continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji, who is currently under custody in a money laundering case, as a Minister without portfolio. The court remarked that Balaji’s continuation in such a capacity did not serve any meaningful purpose and was not in alignment with the principles of good governance.
The court observed,
“The Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu may be well advised to take a decision about the continuance of V.Senthil Balaji (who is in judicial custody) as a Minister without Portfolio, which serves no purpose and which does not augur well with the Principles of Constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration.”
Labeling the situation as a
“constitutional travesty,”
the bench, consisting of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu, pointed out that the founding fathers of the constitution might not have foreseen such a scenario. They stated,
“The Founding Fathers of our Constitution may not have comprehended corrosion of good and clean Governance to an extent that a person would be retained as a Minister without portfolio, that too while in custody nor did they envisaged that the Executive Head would reward an elected Member the status of a Minister, though finding him not fit to discharge the responsibilities of a Minister. A Minister without portfolio is a constitutional travesty.”
The court further emphasized that there’s no moral or constitutional basis to retain an MLA as a Minister without a specific portfolio, as it goes against the ethos of good governance and constitutional morality.
The bench’s observations came in response to a plea by ML Ravi, President of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, former AIADMK MP J. Jayavardhan, and S Ramachandran of Chennai’s Kolathur. The petitioners challenged a Press Note issued by the State on June 16, which transferred the portfolios allocated to Balaji but maintained his status as a Minister without portfolio.
The court noted,
“Naturally, the person in custody cannot effectively perform the work of a Minister. In the present case, V.Senthil Balaji is a Minister without Portfolio, meaning thereby, no work is allotted to him. He is a Minister for the name sake. In other words, a Minister without any work. Such a person certainly will not be entitled for any allowances because he will not be officiating any work nor any work is allotted to him. Certainly, no purpose is served by just ceremonially retaining him as a Minister.”
