Madras High Court To Decide Maintainability Of Plea Seeking Disqualification Of Governor RN Ravi

Update: 2022-12-15 12:27 GMT
story

The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved orders on the maintainability of a plea by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam challenging the authority by which Governor RN Ravi is continuing to hold office as he has been appointed as the Chairman of the Auroville foundation.The petitioner had submitted that as per Section 13 of the Auroville Foundation Act, the Chairman was entitled to salaries...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved orders on the maintainability of a plea by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam challenging the authority by which Governor RN Ravi is continuing to hold office as he has been appointed as the Chairman of the Auroville foundation.

The petitioner had submitted that as per Section 13 of the Auroville Foundation Act, the Chairman was entitled to salaries and allowances along with other benefits like leave, pension, provident fund etc as fixed by the Central Government. Drawing attention to Article 158(2) of the Constitution of India which prohibits the Governor from holding any other office of profit, Kannadasan submitted that the moment Ravi accepted the position of Chairman, he was disqualified to continue in the office of the Governor.
When the case came up for hearing today, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy asked the petitioners how the petition would be maintainable as the Governor is protected under Article 361 of the Constitution.
We want to know whether the court has ever issued a notice to the Governor. Suppose we issue notice. He can refuse to take notice stating Article 361. Now we also cannot issue any process against him. So how will we give effect to this writ petition? the court asked.
The petitioner argued that the protection under Article 361 is only with respect to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
Relying upon clause 4 of Article 361, the petitioner argued that the current challenge was not against the office of Governor performing duties but in his individual capacity.
"I'm not asking the Governor to respond. I'm asking Mr Ravi to explain how he is continuing to hold office while also holding an office of profit," the petitioner argued.
After hearing the petitioner in detail, the court has reserved orders.
Case Title: M Kannadasan v Union Of India
Case No: WP 133846 of 2022 (Filing No.)
Tags:    

Similar News