Monday, April 29, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

State vs Governor: Supreme Court to hear Tamil Nadu plea regarding appointment of Higher Education Minister K Ponmudy

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, challenging the decision of Governor R.N. Ravi not to appoint DMK leader K. Ponmudy as Higher Education Minister on moral grounds.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud agreed to list the case following an urgent oral mentioning made by Senior Advocates AM Singhvi and P. Wilson for the State.

The petitioner accused Governor Ravi of attempting to run a ‘parallel government’ or ‘dyarchy’ in the State by refusing to adhere to the Cabinet advice to appoint DMK leader K. Ponmudy as Higher Education Minister following the recent Apex Court order suspending his conviction and sentence in a disproportionate assets case.

The State argued that under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution, a State Governor did not have any individual discretion in the appointment of a State Minister and suitability of the candidate and had to follow the advice of the Chief Minister-led State Cabinet.

The Chief Minister alone had sole discretion on the appointment of a State Minister. A Governor could not decide on who should be a Minister on moral grounds or any other grounds, it added.

The petition contended that Governor Ravi was in clear contempt of the Supreme Court order of March 11, which had suspended the conviction of Ponmudy specifically for the reason that he should not suffer disqualification under the Representation of People (RP) Act from holding the office of Minister or MLA.

The Governor’s letter on March 17 to Chief Minister MK Stalin, refusing to appoint Ponmudy on the ground that the Supreme Court had ‘only suspended, not set aside’ his conviction amounted to wilful disobedience of a judicial order.

It said the Governor could not act as a ‘super appellate authority’ and was bound by the orders of the Supreme Court.

The state government further argued that the Governor had stepped out of bounds to opine that Ponmudy was “tainted by corruption” and that his appointment would be against “constitutional morality”.

It contended that when the Supreme Court has suspended the conviction, a legal fiction was created that the earlier finding of guilt by a lower court against Ponmudy never existed in the eyes of the law.

The petitioner sought quashing of the letter written by the Governor to the Chief Minister and further prayed for directions to appoint Ponmudi as a Minister by administering him oath of office with the portfolios specified in the letter of the Chief Minister.

spot_img

News Update