MS. Jayalalitha as Chief Minister

MS. JAYALALITHA HAS notched up two unedifying firsts in the act of becoming Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister for a second time. She is the first person to become Chief Minister despite being expressly prohibited from contesting an Assembly election. She is also the first person who has been convicted in a court of law to hold such office. On both counts, her ascension violates the very spirit of the Constitution and raises worrying questions of both legal and moral import. The constitutional provision, namely Article 164 (4), which permits a non-member of a legislature to become a Minister (on the condition that he or she be elected within six months thereof), was never designed to apply to those who have been barred from contesting elections. And if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit convicted persons from occupying ministerial posts, it is only because our founding fathers did not believe it was necessary to include a provision to avert such an outrageous possibility. Under any rational interpretation, the spirit of the Constitution is wholly at odds with the idea that a person who has fallen foul of the law may hold an office which vests him or her with the responsibility for implementing it. In her haste to assume office, Ms. Jayalalitha has shown little regard for legal niceties and moral propriety. The democratic framework of the polity would have been better served if she had waited for questions regarding her disqualification to be resolved before assuming chief ministerial office.

Having said this, the Tamil Nadu Governor, Ms. Fathima Beevi, had no option but to invite Ms. Jayalalitha to form the Government once she staked her claim to the chair. It is likely that a number of factors weighed on the Governor's mind before she gave her consent. Among them, the fact that the bare letter of the law is silent about whether disqualified or convicted persons may be sworn in. Also, the existence of a longstanding convention that gubernatorial discretion in such circumstances is limited to determining whether the person who stakes a claim enjoys the majority of the House. And the possibility that refusing to swear her in could precipitate an ugly and unwanted constitutional crisis. The recent events in Tamil Nadu have underlined the need that the questions of whether disqualified persons and/or convicted persons may occupy ministerial office are judicially resolved - and quickly. Continuing uncertainty over these questions - a result of the lack of clarity in the law - is unhealthy for the democratic framework of our polity.

One of the absurdities of the present situation is the existence of a number of corruption cases against Ms. Jayalalitha, many of which are overseen by officials of the State Government, which she now heads. It is in the interest of justice that these cases are determined fairly and without prejudice. The political temptation to influence the official prosecution to either weaken or scupper these cases is likely to be great but Ms. Jayalalitha must be urged to resist from interfering with the legal process. If, as she has repeatedly maintained, the corruption cases are bogus and fabricated, the best way of proving this is by fair acquittal. As she embarks on her second term as Chief Minister - which will last a mere six months if she fails to qualify to contest and win an Assembly byelection within that period - Ms. Jayalalitha would be well- advised to remember the very circumstances in which she assumed office were extraordinary and open to question. The emphatic, even stunning victory of the AIADMK-led front she led in the election is a vindication of her political popularity. But she has to squarely address the issues that cast a shadow on the moral legitimacy of her occupying the Chief Minister's chair.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : An over-hasty endorsement?