'No Specific Order By Governor Removing Him From Cabinet, How Can Court Pass Order': Madras HC On Senthil Balaji’s Status As Minister Without Portfolio

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu was hearing pleas filed by advocate ML Ravi and S Ramachandran challenging the continuation of Minister Senthil Balaji in the Tamil Nadu cabinet as a minister without portfolio.

“We’re only asking in this scenario, under Article 226, how can the court pass orders when there is no specific orders by the Governor. He was inducted as a Minister into the cabinet by the Governor. Now, his portfolio has been taken away. But there is no specific order removing him from the cabinet. Now, can the court pass orders under Article 226?” the court said.

The petitioners had challenged the Press Note issued by the State on June 16, according to which the government has transferred the portfolios that were allocated to Balaji but said that he would continue as a Minister without portfolio. Calling the Press note issued by the Government invalid, Ravi said allowing Balaji to continue is against the pleasure and discretion of the Governor. He submitted that the Governor had not agreed to the proposal of the Governor to allow Balaji to continue as a Minister without portfolio, but the Government went against the will of the Governor.

When the matter came up before the bench, the Chief Justice asked the petitioners if the Governor had passed any specific order setting aside the appointment of Balaji. The court noted that though the Governor had not agreed to keep Balaji as Minister without portfolio, he had not passed any orders discharging him or removing him as a Minister. 

“Where has the governor set aside the appointment of that person as a minister? ... He was appointed as minister by the Governor. So that aspect is satisfying. Where do we get the powers of the Governor to remove a minister? The Governor did not agree to keep him as a Minister without portfolio but he did not pass an order dismissing him as a Minister. There is a difference between not agreeing and doing a positive act,” the court said.

Observing that interpretation of an order passed by the Governor was not permissible, the court added that even the Chief Minister had requested the Governor to allow Balaji to continue as a Minister without Portfolio and not to continue as a Minister.

“There should be a specific order discharging him as a minister. Interpretation can be of law. Not of an order passed by the Governor. The Chief Minister has not requested the governor to allow him to continue as a minister. He only asked for him to continue as minister without portfolio,” the court said.

The court also noted that even as per the Representation of Peoples Act, a person is not barred from holding the post of a minister merely pending criminal prosecution but only disqualified if found convicted.

“We understand your anxiety in the matter. But while exercising powers under Article 226, we will have to be specific. We can’t go merely on the basis of press release. Unless we have a clear direction that the Governor has removed him and he still continues, we may can’t proceed under Article 226. But we don’t have any such order from the Governor,” the court orally remarked. 

Noting that some of the related petitions dealing upon the same issue have not been numbered, the court directed all the matters to be clubbed together and posted the matter to July 7 for further hearing.

Case Title: ML Ravi v Principal Secretary to Government and others

Case No: WP 18813 of 2023