Ms. Jayalalithaa's exit

HAVING HURRIED TO assume chief ministerial office - in the face of grave reservations over the constitutional propriety of doing so - Ms. Jayalalithaa has rushed headlong to meet what is perhaps an inevitable judicial conclusion. The Supreme Court's order quashing her appointment as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister may have embarrassed her, but it should have come as no surprise. More than once during the hearings, which were held in connection with the clutch of writ petitions challenging the validity of her appointment, the five-member Constitution Bench had expressed its serious misgivings over the swearing in of someone who was convicted for corruption and disqualified from contesting an election. The Court's scathing observations did not merely provide an inkling of the judicial mind. They also provided Ms. Jayalalithaa the opportunity to retain a measure of dignity by stepping down rather than face the mortification of being virtually told to go. For reasons best known to herself, Ms. Jayalalithaa chose to ignore the sensible advice that she resign on the basis of the clear and wholly unmistakable judicial signals. The unedifying result is for all to see: she has become the first Chief Minister to be unseated by a court of law.

In arriving at the decision that Ms. Jayalalithaa's swearing-in was invalid, the court has ensured that the spirit of the law is not subverted by exploiting possible ambiguities in its letter. By holding that a non-legislator can be appointed a Minister under Article 164 of the Constitution only if he or she is qualified to become a legislator (under Article 173) and not otherwise disqualified (under Article 191), the Court has adopted a harmonious interpretation of the constitutional provisions - one that is wholly in keeping with a sense of lawfulness as well as plain commonsense. The judgment has significant implications for the discretionary role that Governors may play while appointing Chief Ministers, the scope of which has been considerably expanded. Governors are empowered, in fact obliged, to decline appointing a person as Chief Minister if such a person is disqualified under the constitutional provisions. In making chief ministerial appointments, the Governor's role goes well beyond adding up the numbers and swearing in whoever enjoys the confidence of the House.

In the face of this enormous legal setback, Ms. Jayalalithaa has declared that she will prove her innocence in the Courts, contest a byelection and take over as Chief Minister once again. Ironically, this is exactly what she ought to have done in the first place - namely, settle on an alternative Chief Minister until she overcame the stigma of her convictions and her resulting electoral disqualification. It would have saved Ms. Jayalalithaa the embarrassment of being forced out of office. It would have saved Tamil Nadu of the uncertainty of being governed by a Chief Minister whose very ascension was plagued by legal doubt. Most important of all, it would have saved the nation of the unnecessary strain that was inflicted on the delicately balanced institutional arrangements that support the framework of the Constitution. The notion that an electoral victory - however impressive or sweeping - is a justification for almost anything is absurd. As the Court has firmly reasserted, the people's will can prevail only if it is in consonance with the constitutional provisions. Ms. Jayalalithaa's return to office depends on the fate of appeals against her conviction in the corruption cases. It is only fair in the circumstances that these are heard quickly and impartially by the Madras High Court. It is only proper that if Ms. Jayalalithaa does return to chief ministerial office, she does so after she establishes her innocence by being acquitted.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Elevating a right