The conduct of the Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi, has been constitutionally questionable for quite some time now. In the latest instance, his refusal to allow the re-induction of K. Ponmudy into the Tamil Nadu Cabinet has been exposed as unwarranted. Following some strident criticism from the Supreme Court, Mr. Ravi administered the oath of office and secrecy to Mr. Ponmudy, whose conviction in a corruption case was recently stayed by the Court, resulting in his eligibility to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly being restored. Mr. Ravi had taken the legally untenable stand that it would be against “constitutional morality” to re-induct Mr. Ponmudy based on the stay of conviction. In the Governor’s interpretation, the order of the two-judge Bench, staying the conviction recorded by the Madras High Court, was only by way of interim relief, and that it meant that the conviction was “existent, but made non-operative” and did not amount to its being set aside. The interpretation was quite questionable, as the legal consequences that flow from a criminal conviction in a corruption case — loss of eligibility for being a legislator and, therefore, for being a Minister — stand suspended as soon as the conviction is stayed. Parliament and the State legislatures restore the membership of those convicted as soon as the conviction is stayed, even if their seats had been declared vacant. The Governor’s confusion of “morality” and principles of good governance with legality seemed deliberate.
As Mr. Ravi’s propensity to find new ways to get under the skin of the DMK regime becomes more apparent, two things stand out: his reluctance to accept the limitations of his office and the Union government’s failure to act on the increasing instances of its Governors being pulled up by the Court. On an earlier occasion, the Court had noted that he had disposed of Bills pending with him only after his prolonged inaction was questioned by the Court. In the latest instance, he gave enough cause for the Court to ask, “If the Governor does not follow the Constitution, what does the State do except come to a constitutional court?” Things have come to such a pass that only a vocal court can discipline them. Given the plurality of litigation concerning the conduct of Governors, it is disconcerting that the Centre does not see any scope for remedial measures, when it ought to be its duty to replace Governors who are pathologically averse to following the Constitution. The only explanation is that their conduct is driven, not by constitutional norms, but by the political assignment given to them by those appointing them.
