Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court of India against its Governor's refusal to swear in Thiru K. Ponmudi as Minister, following his conviction being stayed by the Supreme Court in connection with a disproportionate assets case.

Court has been told that the Governor has given his own interpretation to the top court's order stating that the conviction has only been “suspended, not set aside” and therefore Thiru K. Ponmudi cannot be appointed as Minister.

Notably, consequent to the suspension of the conviction of Thiru K. Ponmudi, the TN Chief Minister had written to the Governor to swear in Ponmudi as a Minister and to allot the Higher Education Portfolio to him.

Today, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi mentioned the issue before a CJI DY Chandrachud led bench saying that it was the same errant Governor, who was earlier dealt with by this Court.

Singhvi referred to the plea filed by the Tamil Nadu Government last year over the inaction, omission, delay and failure to comply with the constitutional mandate by the Governor of Tamil Nadu to give his assent to the Bills passed and forwarded by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature to him.

CJI has asked Singhvi to circulate an email saying he would look into the request at the earliest.

The TN government has filed an application in the abovementioned petition on the issue of delayed assent on bills.

In the instant application, Tamil Nadu has submitted that after the Top Court has categorically held that Ponmudi's conviction is being suspended to avoid disqualification under the RP Act, 1951, the interpretation given by the Governor to that order acting as if he was a super appellate authority is a blatant violation of the said order and he is bound by that orders under Articles 142 & 144 of the Constitution of India.

Court has been further told that the Governor has questioned the suitability of Thiru K. Ponmudi for appointment as minister as the 1st Respondent claims that he is “tainted of corruption” and that his appointment would be against “constitutional morality”.