A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud verbally remarked “can the governor defend his constitutionally illegal conduct? Should we close our eyes on the virtual breach of the Constitution by the governor?”
Seemingly miffed, the CJI went on to question attorney general R Venkataramani about what the governor was doing. “We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the governor. We didn’t want to say this loud. He is defying the Supreme Court of India,” he said.
“The governor is a titular head and he has the power to counsel (the government). That is all,” the CJI said.
The CJI went on to add that the “governor has no business telling us” that the stay on Ponmudy’s conviction by the Supreme Court was “against constitutional morality”.
The CJI warned that if by Friday the bench “did not hear in a positive manner setting the constitutional position right” then it will pass an order. “We are governed by rule of law. How can any constitutional functionary not act in accordance with the Constitution,” the CJI said.The attorney general objected to the Tamil Nadu government approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution when the matter was already pending before a division bench of the top court. In response, the CJI queried, “What do states do if the governor does not follow the Constitution?”The attorney general clarified that he was not defending the action of the governor. But, he argued, he needed some time to ascertain what “persuaded” the governor to refuse re-induction of the DMK MLA into the state cabinet. The development took place during the hearing of an application filed by the Tamil Nadu government seeking directions to the governor to re-induct Ponmudy into the state cabinet on the basis of chief minister MK Stalin’s recommendation.
Appearing on behalf of the state government, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the decision taken by the governor destroys “constitutional ethos”.
