Search the Internet          Tips

People's mandate can't subvert Constitution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday, hearing arguments on the petitions challenging Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa's appointment, observed that securing people's mandate did not give licence to a person to subvert constitutional provisions.

The observation was made by a five-judge constitutional bench, when Jayalalithaa's counsel K K Venugopal submitted that despite her conviction people of the state have overwhelmingly voted for her party, knowing fully well that if the party headed by her came to power she would be the chief minister.

Justifying the then governor Fathima Beevi's decision to appoint her as the chief minister, Venugopal contended, "If the governor looks into any other criteria other than the fact that the elected leader of the legislature party enjoyed the majority support of the house, then will of the people would be defeated."

The bench comprising Justice Bharucha, Justice G B Pattanaik, Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice Ruma Pal and Justice Brijesh Kumar said, "Please consider what you are saying. Regardless of conviction, she has won elections."

"Today, it is a question of a sentence of two to three years. Tomorrow, it may be a sentence for murder. Are we left with no standards at all?" the bench questioned.

On the discretion of the governor to appoint a chief minister, the bench said, "We are yet to come across a governor who has sworn in a person convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act. We have a Constitution, which has never imagined this. We have judgements which have never conceived this."

Venugopal said, "People of Tamil Nadu believe that her conviction has become an irrelevant factor and they believe that she has been unjustly convicted. And hence, as the people's will is supreme she could become the chief minister."

Justice Bharucha said, "By all means. In that case she should wait till the order of conviction is set aside. Because of this feeling, should the Constitution be thrown overboard? We are hearing you and not the people. This kind of proposition will be dangerous."

Jayalalithaa's counsel said if a sitting Member of Parliament gets convicted for an offence, he does not get disqualified immediately. His disqualification takes place only after the final court of appeal upholds his conviction.

"If a murderer can continue as MP or minister or a chief minister or a prime minister until the final court of appeal affirms his conviction, it will be reasonable to interpret that Jayalalithaa's conviction is not final, till it was affirmed by the final court of appeal," he said.

Justice Pattanaik observed, "If it can be so construed then according to you it is open for anybody, whether convicted or not, to go to electorate and get elected and assume office."

Venugopal said if the Constitution itself was silent on the qualifications or disqualifications of a non-elected member being appointed as chief minister by the governor, how could the court interpret the provisions to supplement that?

Responding to the argument of Venugopal that the verdict of the final court of appeal should be taken as ground for disqualification, Justice Sabharwal said, "If the feeling of the people of Tamil Nadu is that she has been convicted unjustly, the same criteria could be applied for the verdict of the superior courts. This bothers us."

Venugopal said, "The ground reality is that the entire system has been corrupted. There is corruption in every part of the system. Maybe she was unjustly convicted."

"This is dangerous. If required, the court will do anything for upholding constitutional provisions and to cleanse the corrupt atmosphere in the country," Justice SP Bharucha said in response.

RELATED REPORTS:
Tough day for Jaya's counsel in SC
Jaya as CM will set wrong precedent, SC told

Tell us what you think of this report