Court Cannot Send Notice To Governor: Madras High Court Rejects Plea Against Tamil Nadu Governor Over ‘Office Of Profit’ Claim

The Madras High Court on Thursday rejected a plea by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam challenging Governor RN Ravi's authority to continue to hold office.

Holding the petition to be non-maintainable, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot issue notice to the Governor as he enjoys immunity under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, M Kannadasan, Kancheepuram District President of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam 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 had argued that the moment Ravi accepted the position of Chairman of Auroville Foundation, he was disqualified to continue in the office of the Governor.

While hearing the matter, the bench had previously asked the petitioner how the court could give effect to the petition in the event that the Governor refused to take notice.

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.

To this, the petitioner had 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 had argued that the current challenge was not against the office of Governor performing duties but in his individual capacity.

The court however was not convinced with the argument. It opined that the Governor, under his immunity extended by Article 136 of the Constitution was not answerable to the court. Thus, the court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable.

Case Title: M Kannadasan v Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

Case No: WP 133846 of 2022 (Filing No.)