In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, refusing to direct the removal of Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, who is implicated in a money laundering case. This ruling reaffirms the constitutional principle that a Governor cannot dismiss a Minister without the recommendation of the Chief Minister.
Also read-‘Free Speech Should Not Be Hate Speech’: Madras High Court On Sanatana Dharma Row (lawchakra.in)
Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) last year in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam during his tenure as Transport Minister in the AIADMK-led Tamil Nadu government (2011-2015), later joined the DMK and became a minister in 2021. Despite his arrest and remand to judicial custody, Balaji continued in the State Cabinet as Minister without portfolio, a situation the Madras High Court observed did not
“augur well with the principles of Constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance, and purity in administration.”
The High Court “advised” Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin to decide whether Balaji should continue as a State Minister. However, it did not issue any direct orders for Balaji’s removal, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. The plea, filed by lawyer ML Ravi, challenged Balaji’s continuance in the Cabinet despite his incarceration.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, stated,
“…perusing the impugned judgment of the High Court, we concur with the view taken… no interference is called for under Article 136.”
Also read-Delhi L-G Sanctions CBI And ACB Probes Into High-Profile Corruption Cases (lawchakra.in)
The bench further orally observed that the Governor cannot unilaterally dismiss a Minister without the Chief Minister’s recommendation.
The Madras High Court, in its judgment, had noted that even as per the Representation of Peoples Act, a person is not barred from holding the post of a minister merely pending criminal prosecution but is only disqualified if found convicted. It emphasized that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu should make a decision regarding Balaji’s continuance as a Minister without Portfolio, which serves no purpose and does not align with the principles of constitutional ethos.
The High Court also clarified that if a Governor chooses to ‘withdraw his pleasure’ in respect of a Minister, he must exercise his discretion with the knowledge of the Chief Minister and not unilaterally. In Balaji’s case, the Chief Minister had not consented for the exercise of discretion by the Governor.
This case, titled M L Ravi v. Principal Secretary to Governor, Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., SLP(C) No. 026738 – 026739 / 2023, highlights the intricate balance of power and discretion within the constitutional framework of India, particularly in the context of ministerial appointments and dismissals.
Also read-Supreme Court Collegium Nominates Two Women As Judges To Gauhati High Court (lawchakra.in)