Fresh tussle with Governor: Why Tamil Nadu has moved SC to have a minister reinstated

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea by Tamil Nadu seeking its intervention in reinstating K Ponmudy, a senior leader of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), as a minister. In December last year, Ponmudy was disqualified after the Madras High Court convicted him in a disproportionate assets case.

The case has turned into yet another flashpoint between the state government and Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi, after the latter last week refused to reinstate Ponmudy even after the SC removed the basis of his disqualification.

The disqualification

The Madras High Court on December 19 last year overturned a trial court verdict acquitting Ponmudy and his wife in a disproportionate assets case. The HC convicted the former minister and his wife and awarded them a three-year jail term, along with a fine of Rs 50 lakh. The couple was on trial for amassing assets during his tenure as minister for Mines and Minerals in the 2006–2011 DMK government.

This decision by the High Court triggered Section 8(3) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which states: “A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.”

While Ponmudy was disqualified and could no longer be a minister, he moved the Supreme Court challenging the HC ruling.

Stay of the conviction

On March 11, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, however, stayed the conviction and the sentence. The grant of stay by the SC essentially means that Ponmudy’s conviction is put in abeyance, or is suspended pending a final decision— as though it does not exist till the final verdict of the appeal comes through. Since his disqualification from the legislature flowed from the conviction, with the grant of stay, no grounds exist for the disqualification.

The SC had acknowledged that the sentence had to be suspended as “in view of operation of Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act, irreversible situation will be created if the conviction is not suspended.”

“Accordingly, we direct that the conviction of the appellant (K.Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani) under the impugned judgment and order stands suspended. Therefore, it follows that even the sentence stands suspended,” the Court had said.

This is the stated position in law and has been followed in a line of precedents, including in the recent, high-profile disqualification of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in August 2023. Gandhi was disqualified from Parliament following a Surat trial court verdict in March 2023 in a criminal defamation case, in which he was given a two-year jail sentence, the maximum sentence allowed under that provision.

When the trial court and Gujarat HC refused to stay the conviction, the Congress leader moved the SC. Following the Supreme Court’s stay on the conviction, he was reinstated as Member of Parliament.

Similarly, Lakshadweep MP Mohammad Faizal was disqualified after a sessions court in Kavaratti convicted and sentenced him to 10 years in jail in an attempt to murder case in January 2023. While the SC stayed his conviction, the Lok Sabha dragged its feet on reinstating him. Eventually, hours before the SC was to hear a plea against the Lok Sabha’s inaction, Faizal was reinstated in March 2023.

Governor’s objections

Following the SC stay, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin on March 13 wrote to the Governor to swear in Ponmudi as a minister on March 14 and allot the Higher Education portfolio to him. However, Ravi rejected the recommendation to reappoint Ponmudy, citing the latter’s ongoing corruption cases.

In a letter addressed to the CM, Governor Ravi stated that although the Supreme Court had suspended Ponmudy’s conviction, it did not nullify the existence of the conviction itself. Ravi argued that the conviction had only been “suspended, not set aside.”

“It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in light of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act 1951, in the said order has suspended the conviction by way of ‘interim relief to Dr K Ponmudy. It means the conviction of Dr K Ponmudy though existent has been made non-operative. It has not been set aside,” said Ravi’s letter to the government, accessed by The Indian Express.

“The offences for which Dr K Ponmudy has been held guilty by the Hon’ble Madras High Court are very serious amounting to moral turpitude, relating to corruption he committed as a public servant. His re-induction in the Council of Ministers while he remains tainted by corruption would be against constitutional morality. Hence, I am unable to accede to your request,” the letter added.

Larger tussle

Tamil Nadu’s latest plea has been filed as part of an ongoing case on the role of the Governor, especially in granting assent to Bills.

Article 164 (1) of the Constitution states that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and “the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor”. However, several Supreme Court rulings have interpreted that the power of the Governor primarily flows from the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers.

In November 2023, the Supreme Court expressed “serious concern” about Governors not acting on Bills. Following this, Governor Ravi had to return 10 pending Bills to the state government. Subsequently, the government called a special Assembly session to repeat the procedure of taking up the Bills again, under Assembly Rule 26.

For the latest news from across India, Political updates, Explainers, Sports News, Opinion, Entertainment Updates and more Top News, visit Indian Express. Subscribe to our award-winning Newsletter Download our App here Android & iOS