Quo warranto petitions misconceived: Jayalalithaa

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, SEPT. 4. The AIADMK supremo, Ms. Jayalalithaa has maintained that her assumption and continuance in office as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is constitutionally and legally valid and she faces no disqualification to hold that office.

In her counter-affidavit to the batch of public interest litigation petitions challenging her appointment as Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalithaa asserted that all the petitions were ``totally misconceived''. She was invited by the Governor after the AIADMK Legislature Party elected her as the Leader. The resolution stated that she and nobody else would be acceptable as the Leader of the Legislature Party and based on this resolution, she was sworn in.

Ms. Jayalalithaa contended that the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge her appointment. She said a `quo warranto' petition would have merit only if the title to the office had an express provision disqualifying her from occupying the office of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. She urged that Article 164 (4) of the Constitution relied upon by the petitioners did not disqualify her from holding the office.

Ms. Jayalalithaa submitted that the AIADMK and its allies contested elections with the express declaration that if they came to power, she would be the Chief Minister and this promise was given to the people of Tamil Nadu in the election meetings addressed by her and the leaders of her allies.

She said that because her candidature was projected for the Chief Ministership and because of the immense popularity, affection and love that she enjoyed among the electorate, such a massive mandate had been possible.

Ms. Jayalalithaa further submitted that `disqualification' and `qualification' had to be the creature of the Constitution and the statute. In the absence of any law declaring `conviction' to be a `disqualification' for a person to hold the office of a Minister or a Chief Minister for a period of six months under Article 164 (4), no such disqualification could be presumed to exist.

She has averred that the approach of the petitioners based on rules of morality or good governance could not be read into a law relating to elections or into the constitutional provisions for holding the office of a Minister/Chief Minister under Article 164 (4).

Ms. Jayalalithaa submitted that ``it is the people's will that the party led by her should form the Government and that she, as leader, should head that Government. Article 164 (4) would require the will of the people to be implemented''.

On the decision of the Governor to invite her to form the Government, Ms. Jayalalithaa submitted that the ``Governor acts in the realm of convention. The Governor is not answerable to any court in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office. What is challenged is the action of the Governor in inviting her to be the Chief Minister and for administering the oath of office''.

Ms. Jayalalithaa maintained that Article 361 of the Constitution would be a bar to the relief sought by the petitioners as the action of the Governor was not justiciable.

She asserted that the court should refrain from deciding what was basically a `political question' and would not interfere with the holding of office of Chief Minister under Article 164 (4) as that would result in the court entering into the political thicket and prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Let's create a favourable climate, says Chinese
           envoy
Next     : Two new judges for AP High Court