A new public interest litigation petition has been filed at the Madras High Court, questioning Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s authority to withhold his order dismissing arrested Minister V. Senthilbalaji from the Council of Ministers, following his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case on June 14, and his subsequently remaining in judicial custody.
Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu took up the new case for hearing along with three other petitions which have already been filed questioning the authority of the arrested Minister, now recuperating at a private hospital in Chennai after undergoing a beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery on June 22, to continue in the Cabinet without any portfolio.
Senior Counsel V. Raghavachari, representing one of the petitioners, said, the litigants had no issues with the continuation of Senthilbalaji as a Member of the Legislative Assembly since the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for disqualification only if a legislator is convicted in a criminal case and imposed with two or more years of imprisonment. He clarified that the litigants were only against Mr. Senthilbalaji’s continuation in the Council of Ministers, that too without any portfolio, despite facing a case involving moral turpitude and having been arrested by the ED. “When a Minister is expected to perform a public duty, how can there be a Minister without a portfolio,” the senior counsel wondered.
On his part, advocate K. Sakthivel, representing M.L. Ravi of the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi who has filed the current PIL petition, stated that the High Court had heard the previous PIL petitions, filed against the Minister, on June 26 and adjourned the hearing to July 7, 2023.
In the meantime, Governor R.N. Ravi had passed an order on June 29, 2023, dismissing the Minister. However, within hours after passing the dismissal order, the Governor backtracked and kept his order in abeyance. He also decided to seek the Attorney General’s opinion on the issue as advised by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Attacking this decision, Mr. Sakthivel contended that the Governor had no authority whatsoever to keep his own order in abeyance.
“Once an order is passed by the Governor, he becomes functus officio (with no further official authority). Nowhere in the Constitution, it has been stated that the Governor can review, withdraw or keep his order in abeyance. Governor is a constitutional authority and he is not subordinate to Centre,” Mr. Sakthivel argued.
When the Chief Justice wanted to know whether the High Court, under Article 226 (its writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution, was empowered to issue directions to the Governor and asked for precedents, if any, Mr. Sakthivel sought time to circulate the judgements on the issue. Hence, the Bench adjourned the hearing by a week.
The Chief Justice requested Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram too, to submit by next week, the authorities that he would be relying upon to oppose the cases before the court.
