Search the Internet          Tips

Supreme Court poser to Attorney
General on Jayalalithaa case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday wanted to know from Attorney General Soli Sorabjee the consequences, and redressal, in case the court decided that J Jayalalithaa's appointment as Tamil Nadu chief minister was illegal.

A five-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice S P Bharucha asked, "Supposing we were to hold alternatively that Jayalalithaa could not have been sworn in and cannot continue as chief minister, as a chief minister she would have appointed other ministers, would they also go along with her? What happens to the Tamil Nadu government in the interim period? What are the consequences? It has to be redressed."

The judges said, "There cannot be a vacuum. We want an appreciation of the consequences and how they can be redressed."

Sorabjee sought some time to address the court on the issue.

Beginning the arguments on Wednesday, Sorabjee submitted that a person convicted of grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude should not be allowed to become a minister, much less a chief minister, especially when the conviction was operating on the date of appointment.

Sorabjee said, "Such an appointment is void, as this will strike at the root of the representative form of democracy envisaged by our Constitution."

Sorabjee, however, said he would not criticise then governor Fathima Beevi for her decision to appoint Jayalalithaa as chief minister, as she was not a party in the case.

The judges, however, responded by saying, "There is no way you could avoid criticism of the governor. Nobody attributes motive. But the fact remains that your argument is that the day Jayalalithaa was appointed as chief minister there was a disqualification attached to her."

The attorney general said Article 164 carried an implied prohibition that a person could not be appointed as chief minister if he has incurred a disqualification on the date of appointment.

Solicitor General Harish Salve, appearing for the central government, supported the petitions challenging Jayalalithaa's appointment as chief minister.

"If a person is disqualified under the Constitution and law to hold an elected office, surely he cannot be appointed to the exalted office of a minister or a chief minister and still be held to be responsible to the elected body," Salve said.

Elaborating on Article 164(4) giving a time frame of six months to a non-member minister to get elected to the House, he said the provision was for acquiring a qualification, and not to shed a disqualification.

EARLIER REPORT:
Jaya as CM will set wrong precedent, Supreme Court told

Tell us what you think of this report