Guv’s questions can be ‘views’ at best; CM at liberty to chose, says Wilson

CHENNAI: Governor RN Ravi’s ‘disagreement’ with Chief Minister MK Stalin on the issue of Senthilbalaji continuing as a Minister in the state Cabinet could only be construed as his personal ‘view’ at best. A simple reading or even legal interpretation of the Constitution suggests that the Governor has no authority to arrive at a conclusion on a person/MLA ceasing or continuing to be a Minister once the CM makes a recommendation.

That Governor Ravi, in his release responding to the CM’s recommendation on the change of portfolios, did not even withdraw his pleasure in Senthilbalaji continuing as a Minister, which again does not legally endanger his ministerial status, was sufficient to conclude that it was no more than a moral question raised by the Raj Bhavan.

It was none other than the Supreme Court that had found mere moral turpitude insufficient to remove tainted Ministers from the Cabinet. Passing its verdict in the landmark Manoj Narula vs Union of India case in August 2014, a five-judge Constitution bench led by the then Chief Justice of India RM Lodha said, “We are of the convinced opinion that when there is no disqualification for a person against whom charges have been framed in respect of heinous or serious offences or offences relating to corruption to contest the election, by interpretative process, it is difficult to read the prohibition into Article 75 (1) or, for that matter, into Article 164 (1) to the powers of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister in such a manner.”

Understandably, senior advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha MP Wilson said; “It is becoming more and more clear that Governor Ravi needs an in-house legal advisor since he himself is not bothering to read the judgements of the Supreme Court.” Citing Manoj Narula case, Wilson said that the SC itself left it to the wisdom of the PM to decide whether a person against whom criminal charges have been framed should be selected as Minister.

“The SC categorically refused to make it binding law. The law states they become disqualified only upon conviction. The SC has also held that this liberty applies to CMs while choosing state ministers. In any case, no charges have been framed against Senthilbalaji by the court. That can happen only after the investigation is complete and the final report is filed,” he added.

“He is not withdrawing his pleasure even. Governor cannot say who should be the Minister. It is only his view. The court has no power to pass orders to an extent that who should be Minister. Under Article 163 of the Constitution, the Governor must act only on the aid and advice of the Cabinet,” Wilson told DT Next.