A day after the Supreme Court made strong observations against Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for refusing to re-induct former Minister K. Ponmudy in the State Cabinet, the Governor administered the oath of office and secrecy to the latter in the presence of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin at a ceremony in the Raj Bhavan on Friday.
Earlier, the Chief Minister, Mr. Ponmudy, their Cabinet colleagues Udhayanidhi Stalin, Ma. Subramanian and P.K. Sekarbabu, Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena and senior officials were received by the Governor’s Secretary on their arrival in the Raj Bhavan.
After the singing of national anthem and the Thamizh Thai Vaazhthu (State anthem), the Chief Secretary requested the Governor to administer the oaths of office and secrecy to Minister-designate Mr. Ponmudy. The Governor administered the oaths to the Minister and thereafter both of them signed the necessary papers.
On Thursday, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud slammed the Governor for “defying the Supreme Court”. The Governor had declined to administer the oath of office to Mr. Ponmudy despite an apex court order, on March 11, suspending his conviction in a disproportionate assets case. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud had given the Governor overnight to correct his course.
On Friday, Attorney-General R. Venkataramani said the Governor had thought through the affair and decided to invite Mr. Ponmudy to be sworn in.
Mr. Venkataramani clarified that the Governor had no intention to disregard any orders of the Supreme Court. “His views were based on certain understanding of certain judgments of this court,” the Attorney-General assured the court.
Senior advocate P. Wilson, for the State, cut to the chase by submitting that “parliamentary democracy survives because of the Supreme Court”. He informed the court that the swearing-in has been scheduled at 3.30 pm on Friday.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for Tamil Nadu, asked why “better sense prevails after the State approaches the Supreme Court”. “Should we come to the Supreme Court every time now?” Mr. Singhvi asked about the Governor’s conduct.
In its short order, the court recorded that “the Governor of Tamil Nadu is inviting Mr. Ponmudy for being sworn in as Minister of the State government pursuant to a request made by the Chief Minister. The court is apprised of the fact that the swearing-in is scheduled to take place today”.
In Chennai, the Raj Bhavan announced on Friday afternoon that the Governor accepted the Chief Minister’s recommendation to re-induct Mr. Ponmudy, just a few hours prior to the ceremony.
At the function, Mr. Ponmudy presented a bouquet of flowers to the Governor, as the Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues clapped. The Governor too presented a bouquet to Mr. Ponmudy and both were seen exchanging customary pleasantries. The CM too presented flowers to the Governor.
On recommendation of the CM, Mr. Ponmudy was given the Higher Education portfolio, including Technical Education, Electronics, Science and Technology that he held earlier before his disqualification. Since his disqualification, the portfolio was reallocated to his Cabinet colleague R.S. Rajakannappan.
Additionally, based on the recommendation of the Chief Minister, the subject of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board hitherto held by Handlooms and Textiles Minister R. Gandhi, was reallocated to Mr. Rajakannappan.
A few hours after their visit to the Raj Bhavan, Mr. Stalin in a social media post thanked the Supreme Court’s intervention in this case. “On behalf of the people of Tamil Nadu, I thank the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the custodian of the Constitution, for its timely intervention & upholding the spirit of the Constitution and saving the democracy.”
In the last decade, the people of India witnessed the “dithering of democracy, withering of federalism and misadventures to put spikes before the functioning of sovereign governments elected by the people and giving age-old traditions a go by”, Mr. Stalin contended.
Underlining that the 2024 Lok Sabha election was “crucial to save the democracy and uphold the Constitution,” Mr. Stalin said: “Let us strive hard to prevent the brazen abuse of the power by fascist forces threatening to ruin our glorious nation.”
On Thursday, the Supreme Court Bench had made it plain to the Governor that it was seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor in this case.
“He [Governor] is defying the Supreme Court of India… When a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court stayed the conviction of Ponmudy, the Governor had no business to tell us that the suspension order did not wipe out the conviction,” Chief Justice Chandrachud had addressed Mr. Venkataramani.
The Governor had replied to the Chief Minister that the apex court’s suspension of the conviction of Mr. Ponmudy did not wipe out the fact that he had earlier been found guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude by the Madras High Court.
The court had given the Governor overnight to “set the constitutional position right”.
The State had argued that the Governor had no individual discretion in the appointment of a State Minister and suitability of the candidate and had to follow the advice of the Chief Minister-led State Cabinet under Article 164 (1) of the Constitution.
“It is well settled that when it comes to appointment of a Minister, the suitability of the person to be appointed is assessed only by the Chief Minister, who alone has sole discretion. It is now well settled that a Governor cannot decide who should be a Minister on moral grounds or any other grounds. That sole prerogative is with the Chief Minister,” the State had contended.
The State had argued that Governor Ravi was in clear contempt of the Supreme Court order of March 11, which had suspended the conviction of Mr. Ponmudy specifically for the reason that he should not suffer disqualification under the Representation of People Act from holding office of Minister or MLA.
“The Governor cannot act as a super appellate authority. He is bound by the orders of the Supreme Court. The Governor is attempting to run a parallel government or dyarchy,” the State had argued.
