A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra today pulled up the Governor saying he was “defying the Supreme Court of India” by his actions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The CJI led bench of Supreme Court expressed grave concern Today regarding the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, who has refused to re-induct Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K Ponmudi into the State cabinet despite the top court staying his conviction in a criminal case last week.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra rebuked the Governor, accusing him of “defying the Supreme Court of India” through his actions.
The bench emphasized that when a court stays a conviction, it is not within the Governor’s jurisdiction to oppose it.
“We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor. He is defying the Supreme Court of India. When conviction is stayed, then Governor has no business saying otherwise. Our order only has to be implemented,”
-the Court remarked unequivocally.
Expressing disbelief at a constitutional functionary acting in such a manner, the Court reiterated that the Governor is merely a titular head expected to uphold the decisions of the elected government.
“Are we governed by the rule of law! How can any constitutional functionary say like this… our order has to be given effect to… It is not about subjective perception about the minister etc. the Governor is a titular head and he has the power to counsel (the government). That is all,”
-the CJI asserted.
Addressing the Attorney General, R Venkataramani, the Court conveyed its intention to take serious action against Ravi’s conduct.
“Mr. Attorney General, what are you doing? Conviction is stayed by the Supreme Court and he [Governor] says he will not swear him in? We have to observe something then. Please tell your Governor we have to take a serious view of it,”
-the bench emphasized.
In response, Venkataramani requested the Court to defer the matter until the following day.
The Supreme Court also raised doubts about the Governor’s assertion that Ponmudi’s reinstatement into the cabinet was contrary to constitutional morality, especially when the Supreme Court itself had suspended his conviction.
“If we don’t hear in a positive manner by tomorrow setting the Constitutional position right, then we have to pass an order We have to pass an order then,”
-the CJI cautioned.
The Court entertained an application from the Tamil Nadu (TN) government, seeking directives to the Governor to reinstate Ponmudy into the State cabinet based on Chief Minister MK Stalin’s recommendation.
The application highlighted the Governor’s refusal to appoint Ponmudi as a minister despite the Supreme Court suspending his conviction in a disproportionate assets case on March 11. Ponmudi formerly served as the State Higher Education Minister until his conviction by the Madras High Court in December 2023, resulting in a three-year prison sentence and automatic disqualification as a legislator, leading to his removal from the ministry.
Following the Supreme Court’s suspension of his conviction last week, Ponmudi’s membership in the State legislature was reinstated. In response, CM Stalin urged the Governor to administer the oath of office to Ponmudi once again. However, Governor Ravi declined, arguing that Ponmudi’s conviction had only been stayed, not overturned.
He further asserted that Ponmudi’s appointment would violate “constitutional morality,” citing allegations of corruption against him. In its plea before the apex court, the TN government argued that the Governor’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order amounted to acting as a “super appellate authority.”
The State challenged the Governor’s objection to Ponmudi’s suitability as a minister, asserting that, according to established precedent, only the Chief Minister can assess the suitability of a ministerial appointee, not the Governor.
Presenting the State’s case against the Governor’s refusal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi remarked,
“This will shock your conscience milords.”
Singhvi also queried why the State had to repeatedly resort to the Supreme Court for resolution.
“Is this a form of diarchy in Tamil Nadu … where two swords must be kept together?”
-the seasoned lawyer questioned.
The State’s application before the apex court was lodged within the framework of an ongoing petition concerning the Governor’s delays in granting assent to bills passed by the TN Legislative Assembly and reluctance to approve the premature release of prisoners despite governmental recommendations.
During today’s proceedings, AG Venkataramani opposed the submission of the application within the existing writ petition, questioning which fundamental rights were being infringed by delaying Ponmudi’s oath-taking.
However, the CJI suggested that the State could file a separate lawsuit for the same purpose.
As Venkataramani persisted in questioning the State’s approach to the apex court amid a pending case, Singhvi retorted,
“The last person speaking about Constitutional morality is someone who is appearing for the Governor.”
Singhvi further contended that the Governor’s refusal to administer the oath was essentially halting an automatic process, a situation unprecedented in the last 75 years.
“And now the only defence is that this is an interlocutory application, etc.! The primacy of the elected government is part of the basic structure,”
-he emphasized.
AG Venkataramani acknowledged the procedural aspect of the application being filed within a pending matter but underscored its significance.
However, the CJI interjected, stating,
“What should we turn a blind eye to… The virtual breach of the constitution by the Governor or the technicalities faced by Mr Singhvi.”
The Court subsequently adjourned the proceedings to Friday (March 22nd).
CASE TITLE:
State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Tamil Nadu Governor
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
