Senthil Balaji Cannot Continue In Cabinet By Just Keeping Order Of His Removal In Abeyance, Petitioners Opposing His Minister Status Tell Madras HC

The submissions were made before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu. The court today adjourned the matter to next week for hearing the Advocate General's arguments. 

The petitioners are challenging a Press Note issued by the State on June 16, according to which the government had transferred the portfolios that were allocated to Balaji but said that he would continue as a Minister without portfolio. Another writ in the nature of Quo Warranto has also been filed questioning the authority by which Balaji is continuing in the post of Minister. A third plea challenges the order of Governor RN Ravi by which he kept in abeyance an earlier order of dismissing Balaji from the Cabinet. 

The bench had earlier questioned how it can pass any orders under Article 226 of the Constitution against the continuation of Balaji as a Minister without portfolio when no such specific direction has been made by the Governor.

On June 29, the Governor issued an order dismissing Balaji from the Council of Ministers with immediate effect. However, the order was later kept in abeyance the same day and the Governor informed the Chief Minister that he intends to seek the opinion of the Attorney General first.

When the matter came up for hearing today, it was argued that once an order of dismissal is made, the only remedy is to swear in Balaji as a Minister again and the same cannot be effected by way of keeping the order in abeyance.

"What is his status in between the period of removal and order of abeyance? By merely keeping the order in abeyance, he cannot be allowed to continue. The governor has to re-appoint him as Minister, swear him in again," Advocate Sakthivel, who represents Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi President ML Ravi, argued.

Senior Counsel V Raghavachari, representing former AIADMK MP J. Jayavardhan, submitted that continuation of Senthil Balaji in the council would result in degradation of the entire system and that the Chief Minister has a collective responsibility. He submitted that when allegations were levelled against Balaji and when he was arrested, the Chief Minister should have removed him from the Council. Advocate Sheik Ismail, representing S Ramachandran of Chennai's Kolathur, also made submissions during the hearing.

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

Case No: WP 18813 of 2023