Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

While dealing with a bunch of pleas against continuation of V.Senthil Balaji as a Cabinet Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu consequent to his arrest and judicial custody, the Madras High Court observed that a Minister without portfolio is a constitutional travesty.

While stating that the Chief Minister is the repository of the people's faith and political compulsion cannot outweigh the public morality, a division bench of Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu ordered that Chief Minister M.K. Stalin "may be well advised to take a decision about the continuance of V.Senthil Balaji (who is in judicial custody) as a Minister without Portfolio, which serves no purpose".

"...and which does not augur well with the Principles of Constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration," said the bench.

Court passed a common order in four pleas which essentially opposed Balaji's continuance as Minister without portfolio. 

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested V.Senthil Balaji on June 14, 2023. Consequently, the Governor of Tamil Nadu issued an order on June 17, notifying the re-allocation of portfolio of V.Senthil Balaji upon the recommendation and advice of the Chief Minister and took serious objections to his continuance as a Minister without portfolio. In absence of any action by the State Government in this regard, the present pleas were filed before the high court.

The main question posed before the division bench was as to whether a Minister could continue in office without being assigned any responsibilities and duties, that is without any portfolios, while in judicial custody.

The petitioners' contended that if the Minister is under custody, then in that case he has disabled himself from performing any work.

A person in custody cannot perform any work. Neither files can be sent to him nor he can transact any business. However, despite being disabled from functioning as a Minister, he is enjoying the perks and allowances at the cost of the public exchequer. He is merely burdening the public exchequer therefore, he cannot continue as a Minister, the petitioners argued. 

They asserted that V.Senthil Balaji is a Minister without Portfolio, meaning thereby, no work is alloted to him. "He is a Minister for the name sake. In other words, a Minister without any work. Such a person certainly will not be entitled for any allowances because he will not be officiating any work nor any work is allotted to him. Certainly, no purpose is served by just ceremonially retaining him as a Minister," they contended. 

The division bench noted that since the Chief Minister is the Executive Head to assign Ministerial responsibilities to an elected representative, if he feels that a particular elected representative cannot be assigned the responsibility of a Minister, there cannot be a moral or Constitutional basis to retain such a Member of the Legislative Assembly as a Minister without portfolio.

"...which would be opposed to the ethos, good Governance and Constitutional morality or integrity," the bench added. 

The division bench said that the petitions at hand, brought to the fore the erosion of the high standards of characters and conduct demanded from the Members of the Legislature. "The petitioners expect and legitimately so high standards of moral conduct by the persons in power," bench emphasised. 

Therefore, with the abovementioned observations, court disposed of the pleas. 

Case Title: S.RAMACHANDRAN V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS with connected matters