New Delhi: Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi came under fire from the Supreme Court for refusing to re-induct DMK MLA K. Ponmudi into the state Cabinet, despite the top court staying his conviction in a corruption case.
“When a two-judges bench (of the Supreme Court) stays the conviction, the governor has no business to tell us that this does not wipe out the conviction and it is non-existent,” a three-judges bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said Thursday, remarking that Governor Ravi’s refusal to re-appoint Ponmudi defied the top court’s order.
The court was hearing Tamil Nadu government’s plea seeking direction to the governor to accept CM M.K. Stalin’s recommendation to re-induct Ponmudi as a minister. It filed an application in a pending petition, which the Tamil Nadu government had filed when Governor Ravi delayed his assent to multiple bills passed by the state legislature.
It argued the governor could not have taken a view contrary to the top court’s order that suspended Ponmudi’s conviction.
Last week the Supreme Court stayed Ponmudi’s conviction in a disproportionate assets case. Following his conviction by the Madras High Court Ponmudi had lost membership of the state assembly. Therefore, when his conviction was stayed, CM Stalin wrote to Governor Ravi, recommending his re-inclusion into the council of ministers.
On 17 March, the governor wrote to the chief minister that since Ponmudi’s conviction was not set aside he remains tainted and inducting him into the state Cabinet again would be against constitutional morality.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani raised procedural objections to the Tamil Nadu government’s application, saying the state should have filed a separate petition, instead of moving the court in a pending case.
But the bench snubbed the AG’s objection and observed: “Is that the best argument of the governor to say that I will defend my constitutionally illegal conduct by pointing fingers at how they (Tamil Nadu) have come to the court.”
It asked the top law officer if he could suggest an alternative remedy to the state.
When Venkataramani contended that the court cannot shut its eyes to procedural irregularity, the bench shot back: “The question is what do we close our eyes to, technical problem (which Tamil Nadu faces) or the virtual breach of the Constitution by the governor.”
The judges directed multiple questions at Venkataramani over Ravi’s conduct to understand how he took a view that effectively overruled the apex court’s decision. “How can the governor say that his reinduction would be against constitutional morality,” the CJI wondered.
Venkataramani once again argued the point about the proceedings being brought “inappropriately” or against the established norms practised in the Supreme Court.
The court immediately quipped: “If the governor does not follow the Constitution, what does the state do, if not move the court.”
It then went on to narrate the facts of the case before it. “The MLA was initially acquitted, but HC reversed it. He was a minister then. His position as MLA fell vacant. But SC stayed his conviction and now the CM asks the governor to reassign his portfolio. But the governor says his reinduction is against constitutional morality. What he means to say is that though conviction has become non-operative, it is still existing.”
The CJI reminded the law officer that the two-judge bench that stayed Ponmudi’s conviction did so upon making a significant observation, which was that if it was not put on hold then it would “lead to irreversible consequences”.
The CJI asserted that once the substantive order of conviction is suspended there is no conviction. “Once there is no conviction you cannot say you are tainted or blemish. The whole idea of passing this order, consciously, was to avoid the creation of an irreversible,” he added.
The bench advised Venkataramani to avoid a situation in which the court would be forced to pass an order, directing the governor to act in accordance with the Constitution.
“We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the governor in this case. Did not want to say it aloud. He is defying the Supreme Court of India. …those who have advised him have not advised him in accordance with the law and the governor better be informed that when the Supreme Court stays the conviction the law has to follow its course,” the bench remarked.
AG was given a day’s time to come back and inform the court about the governor’s decision. He was told that the apex court order has to be given effect to and that it was not up to someone’s subjective perception.
“I may have a different opinion about a particular man, but that is not the point. The point is about the constitutional law and he (governor) has to act as per the Constitution,” the CJI said.
He reiterated the legal position on the governor’s role as a figurative head and said that he could call the chief minister to discuss, but if the CM says he wants to induct someone, that is part of parliamentary democracy.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: SC says Centre could’ve been ‘transparent’ with EC appointments, but refuses to stay the law