'TN Governor Defying Supreme Court, Seriously Concerned About His Conduct' : Supreme Court Slams Governor RN Ravi For Refusing To Appoint Minister

The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 21) expressed displeasure at the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for refusing to re-induct MLA K Ponmudi as a Minister, even after his conviction was suspended by the Supreme Court.

Addressing the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said : "Mr Attorney General, what is your Governor doing? The conviction has been stayed by the Supreme Court and the Governor says he won't swear him in! We will have to make some serious observations. Please tell your governor, we are going to take a serious view of it."

"How can the Governor say that, after the Supreme Court stayed his conviction, his reinduction as a Minister will be against Constitutional Morality?," CJI asked the AG.

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an application filed by the Tamil Nadu Government seeking a direction to the Governor to accept the recommendation made by the Chief Minister to reappoint Ponmudi as Minister.

Seriously concerned about the conduct of TN Governor

"Mr AG, we are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor in this case. We did not want to say it out loud in court but you are now constraining us to say that aloud. This is not the way. He is defying the Supreme Court of India. When a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stays a conviction, the Governor has no business to tell us that this does not wipe off the conviction and it is non-existent. That means, those who have advised him have not advised him correctly in accordance with law. Now the Governor better be informed that when the Supreme Court of India stays a conviction, then law has to follow its course," CJI sternly told the AG.

Governor is a titular head, all that he has is the power to counsel

CJI continued : "This is not about somebody's subjective perceptions. I may have a different view about this particular man, the Minister. But that is not the point. The point is about the Constitutional law. The Chief Minster says I want to appoint this person in the Council of Ministers..that is Parliamentary democracy. Governor is a titular head, a figurehead. He has the power to counsel, that is all"

After the critical remarks of the bench, the AG sought time till tomorrow to respond. The CJI issued a stern warning that if the Governor does not act by tomorrow, there will be Court intervention.

"We will keep tomorrow, we will leave to the governor till tomorrow ...otherwise...we are not saying for now", CJI told AG R Venkataramani.

"We will not resist from passing an order directing the Governor to act as per the Constitution, it is to avoid that situation that we are giving time," CJI said.

Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishel Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, submitted that it was unprecedented in the 75 years history of the nation that a Governor has refused to act as per the Chief Minister's recommendation to appoint a Minister. He submitted that the Supreme Court has earlier passed strictures against the Governor for keeping the bills pending and sending them en-masse to the President.

AG raised certain technical objections to the State's plea for the Minister's appointment, saying that it has been moved as an interlocutory application in a pending writ petition raising a different issue (pendency of bills). The AG also questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32, asking what fundamental right of the State has been violated. However, the AG's technical arguments did not find appeal to the bench.

"Mr Attorney if the governor does not follow the constitution, what does the Government do", CJI asked. 

CJI told the AG that the Court can hear his arguments and pass an order today itself. 

During the hearing, the bench also wondered whether a fresh oath was necessary since the status of Ponmudi would be restored following the Supreme Court suspending his conviction and thereby freezing his disqualification.  Senior Advocate P Wilson, also appearing for the State, opined that a fresh oath may not be necessary, since the status quo ante is restored.

Background 

The Tamil Nadu Government has approached the Supreme Court over the refusal of Governor RN Ravi to re-induct MLA K Ponmudi as a Minister in the State Government. 

The State has filed an interlocutory application in the earlier writ petition filed by it against the Governor over delay in assenting to bills. The State seeks a stay of the Governor's decision taken on March 17 to refuse the appointment of Ponmudi as a Minister. Further, the State seeks a direction to the Governor to act as per the Chief Minister's recommendation to appoint Ponmudi as a Minister. 

The State argued that the Governor has to act as per the Chief Minister's recommendation in terms of Article 164(1) of the Constitution. 

Last week, the Supreme Court had stayed the conviction of Ponmudi in a Disproportionate Assets case. Earlier, following the Madras High Court's order reversing his acquittal in the case, Ponmudi had incurred disqualification under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 and had to resign as a Minister. 

While staying K Ponmudi's conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court observed that in view of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the MLA, who was sentenced to over 2 years of imprisonment, would have incurred disqualification as a result of conviction, yet prima facie the High Court did not consider the main question as to whether the Special Court's view (of acquittal) was a possible view.  

On March 17, Governor RN Ravi wrote to Chief Minister MK Stalin saying that since Ponmudi was held guilty by the Madras High Court for a serious offence amounting to moral turpitude, relating to corruption, his re-induction in the Council of Ministers while he remains tainted of corruption would be against Constitutional morality. The Governor stated that the conviction has only been suspended and not set aside by the Supreme Court.