Quo warranto petitions against Jayalalitha

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, MAY 23. The swearing-in of Ms. Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by the Governor, Ms. Fatima Beevi, on May 14 has been challenged in the Supreme Court by two advocates in public interest litigation (PIL) petitions.

The quo warranto petitions, questioning under what authority Ms. Jayalalitha is holding the office of Chief Minister and seeking the setting aside of her appointment, are likely to be listed for hearing next week.

In his PIL, petitioner Mr. B.R. Kapur raised substantial questions of law of public importance, viz, whether a person is entitled to become Minister/Chief Minister of a State when he or she is disqualified on being convicted for more than two years; whether a person not entitled to become a Member of the Assembly in view of the disqualification as per the Representation of the People Act could be permitted to become a Chief Minister till his/her disqualification is set aside by the court; whether a ``law-breaker'' who has been disqualified because of her conviction for more than two years is eligible to become a ``law- maker''; whether the appointment of Ms. Jayalalitha as Chief Minister would not hamper and hinder the investigation and trial of the other criminal cases pending against her.

The petitioner submitted that Article 164 (4) of the Constitution contemplated that the Governor could appoint a person as Minister even though he/she was not a Member of the Assembly, provided he/she had the requisite qualification under the RP Act to be elected to the Assembly within six months.

He said a person whose candidature had been specifically rejected to contest the Assembly elections could not be said to be covered under Article 164 (4) of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that under the democratic set-up, what was relevant was not whether a person was the leader of a political party, but whether he/she was qualified and eligible to contest the election.

In his petition Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma said that inviting Ms. Jayalalitha to form the Government had raised two vital questions: whether a convicted person had the right to hold any post of profit as well as in the employment of Government and whether a disqualified person becoming the Prime Minister or Chief Minister was constitutional.

The petitioner said Sec. 389(1) Cr.P.C., ``does not expressly speak of suspension of conviction'' and ``as per the established principle no citizen can hold or continue in the (Government) service if he/she is found convicted as per the provision in the Constitution''.

He contended that ``one principle and rule cannot be regulated in two different ways.''

If a politician was allowed to hold a post after his/her conviction, any other person in Government service could also be allowed to hold his office after conviction, he submitted.

Contending that the Tamil Nadu Governor had ``illegally appointed'' Ms. Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister, the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and setting aside of her appointment.

Reacting to the development, Ms. Jayalalitha said in Chennai: ``We will tackle legal matters in court.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : Air India MD suspended
Next     : Aziz returns from Pak. amid drama