CJI Chandrachud took note of the submission. Following the development, Senior Advocate P Wilson – who represented the State, said,
“Parliamentary democracy survives because of you (SC).”
The CJI responded with a smile.
After Ponmudi’s conviction in a criminal case was stayed by the top court recently, the DMK government had asked the Governor to re-induct him into the Cabinet,
However, the Governor refused to do so on the ground that the conviction had only been stayed and not set aside. The State then moved the top court to challenge the Governor’s refusal.
During the hearing of the plea yesterday, the top court had said it was seriously concerned about the conduct of the Tamil Nadu Governor and remarked that he was “defying the Supreme Court of India” by his actions.
“We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor. He is defying the Supreme Court of India. When conviction is stayed, then Governor has no business saying otherwise. Our order only has to be implemented,” the Court had said mincing no words.
It had also questioned how the Governor could have said that Ponmudi’s re-induction into the cabinet was against constitutional morality when the Supreme Court itself had stayed his conviction.
While the AG sought time till today, the Court had warned that it would have to pass an order to set right the Constitutional position.
Ponmudi was the State Higher Education Minister before he was convicted by the Madras High Court in December 2023 and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The sentence meant he incurred automatic disqualification as a legislator, leading to his removal as the minister.
Following the stay on his conviction, Ponmudi’s membership in the State legislature was restored.
However, the Governor refused to administer him oath as minister, stating that Ponmudi is “tainted of corruption” and that his appointment would be against “constitutional morality”.
In its application before the top court, the TN government contended that interpretation given by the Governor to an order of the Supreme Court amounted to acting as “a super appellate authority”.
The State also questioned the Governor’s objection to the suitability of Ponmudi as a minister and argued that it is well settled that when it comes to appointment of a Minister, the suitability of the person to be appointed can only be assessed only by the Chief Minister and not the Governor.
The application before the top court by the State was filed in a pending petition pending before the Supreme Court over the Governor’s delay in granting assent to the Bills passed by the TN Legislative Assembly, and not approving premature release of prisoners despite government recommendation.
