Unless convicted in a criminal case, there is no disqualification for continuing as a minister. It has been argued in the Senthil balaji case on behalf of the tamil Nadu government that the supreme court has said that neither the Constitution nor the legal provisions prohibit the accused persons from continuing as ministers.
Ramachandran, former mp of AIADMK, sought an order to seek an explanation as to why minister Senthil balaji, who has been arrested and imprisoned in the case of the Prohibition of Illegal Money Transfer Act, continues as a non-portfolio minister. Jayavarthan had filed a case in the madras High Court. Similarly, advocate M.L. ravi had also filed a case against the order appointing Senthil balaji as minister without portfolio and against the governor's suspension of the order dismissing him.
The cases came up for hearing again on friday in a bench comprising Chief Justice Gangapurwala and Justice Adikesavalu. At that time, Chief Advocate Shanmukha Sundaram, who appeared for the tamil Nadu government, said, "Governor can act only on the basis of the satisfaction of the cabinet by pointing out the political law sections and supreme court Constitutional Bench judgments. The Constitution does not empower the governor to run the administration parallel to the Cabinet.
The Constitution states that neither the governor nor the President can exercise the power personally. Unless convicted in a criminal case, there is no disqualification for continuing as a minister. The supreme court said that neither the constitution nor the legal provisions barred those accused from continuing as ministers.
The supreme court has ordered that a representative of the people who cannot be removed by the electorate cannot be removed through a court case. Ministers are paid less than MLAs. MLAs get Rs 1 lakh 5 thousand. Ministers get Rs 76,000 only. Thus, they have travel privileges. Therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. A governor cannot act against the government elected by the people. He cannot take decisions arbitrarily," he argued.
At that time, lawyer Sakthivel, who appeared on the side of ML ravi, said that although the governor should act according to the advice of the cabinet, there are some exceptions. Does such a situation exist? Isn't it? To see that. I have written to the chief minister saying that I do not want Senthil balaji to continue as a minister saying that there is a possibility of liquidating the witnesses.
Likewise, the governor cannot stay the order removing Senthil Balaji. The governor did not take any decision without bringing the matter to the attention of the Chief Minister. "The governor has acted according to the constitution," he argued.
Senior lawyer Raghavachari, appearing for Jayavarthan, said, "Minister Senthil balaji in jail cannot serve the government. Therefore, the question of whether he can continue as a minister has arisen for the first time. The governor cannot be without legal authority after seeing the illegalities happening before his eyes. He does not want Senthil balaji to continue as a minister without a portfolio." But the chief minister announced that Senthil balaji will continue as a minister. A person who does not have the trust of the governor cannot continue as a minister," he argued.
After hearing the case, the judges ordered all parties to file written arguments in the case and adjourned the hearing to next week.