The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): The Supreme Court of India expressed strong displeasure towards the Tamil Nadu Governor, RN Ravi, for refusing to reinduct K Ponmudi as a minister, even after the top court suspended his conviction. The court’s stern remarks came during a hearing on an application filed by the Tamil Nadu government, seeking a direction to the Governor to accept the Chief Minister’s recommendation to reappoint Ponmudi as a minister.
Addressing the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned the Governor’s actions, stating, “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.”
The Chief Justice further expressed concern over the Governor’s conduct, saying, “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.”
The court emphasized that when the Supreme Court stays a conviction, the law must follow its course, and the Governor has no business questioning the court’s decision. The Chief Justice stated, “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 bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, heard arguments from Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the state. Singhvi submitted that it was unprecedented in the nation’s 75-year history for a Governor to refuse to act on the Chief Minister’s recommendation to appoint a minister.
The Attorney General raised technical objections to the state’s plea, questioning the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 and the violation of fundamental rights. However, the bench did not find the AG’s arguments appealing, with the Chief Justice questioning, “Mr. Attorney, if the governor does not follow the constitution, what does the Government do?”
The court warned that if the Governor does not act by the following day, the court would intervene and pass an order directing the Governor to act as per the Constitution. The Chief Justice stated, “We will keep tomorrow, we will leave it to the governor till tomorrow…otherwise…we are not saying for now. 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.”
The court’s stern remarks highlighted the constitutional principles at stake and the need for the Governor to uphold the law and respect the Supreme Court’s decisions, even if they conflict with personal opinions or perceptions of “constitutional morality.”