TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court recently 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.
EXPLANATION:
Background and Disqualification of K Ponmudy
- In December last year, K Ponmudy, a senior leader of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu, was disqualified as a minister after the Madras High Court convicted him in a disproportionate assets case.
- The case stemmed from allegations of amassing assets during his tenure as the Minister for Mines and Minerals in the 2006–2011 DMK government.
- The Madras High Court’s decision triggered Section 8(3) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates disqualification of individuals convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.
- The minister was disqualified under this provision, rendering him ineligible to hold ministerial office.
Supreme Court Stay and Reinstatement Plea
- Ponmudy challenged the High Court’s ruling in the Supreme Court, which subsequently stayed his conviction and sentence on March 11.
- The stay effectively suspended Ponmudy’s disqualification from the legislature until a final decision on his appeal is reached.
- This legal precedent was followed to ensure that irreversible consequences did not arise from the conviction pending appeal.
- The stay on Ponmudy’s conviction created grounds for his potential reinstatement as a minister, as the basis of his disqualification no longer existed.
- This situation mirrors previous instances, such as the case of Rahul Gandhi and Mohammad Faizal, where individuals were reinstated following stays on their convictions by the Supreme Court.
Governor’s Refusal to Reinstate Ponmudy
- Despite the Supreme Court’s stay on Ponmudy’s conviction, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi refused to reinstate him as a minister.
- The Governor cited Ponmudy’s ongoing corruption cases as grounds for his objection, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and their implications for constitutional morality.
- In his letter to the Chief Minister, Governor Ravi emphasized that the suspension of Ponmudy’s conviction did not nullify its existence, but merely rendered it non-operative.
- He argued against Ponmudy’s re-induction into the Council of Ministers while tainted by corruption, asserting that it would contravene constitutional morality.
Larger Tussle between Tamil Nadu Government and Governor
- The dispute over Ponmudy’s reinstatement reflects a broader conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor, particularly regarding the Governor’s role in matters such as granting assent to Bills.
- Article 164(1) of the Constitution outlines the appointment of the Chief Minister and other Ministers by the Governor, upon the advice of the Chief Minister.
- However, Supreme Court rulings have interpreted the Governor’s power as flowing primarily from the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers.
- In November 2023, the Supreme Court expressed concern over Governors’ reluctance to act on Bills, prompting Governor Ravi to return 10 pending Bills to the state government.
- It emphasises the ongoing power struggle between the state government and the Governor over constitutional prerogatives.
