Madras High Court refuses to pass directions to remove V Senthil Balaji as minister but "advises" CM Stalin to decide on his fate

The Madras High Court Tuesday observed that Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader V Senthil Balaji continuing in the State cabinet as minister without portfolio did not "augur well with the principles of Constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration.".A bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu "advised" TN Chief Minister MK Stalin to take a decision on Balaji continuing to be a State minister despite his arrest in a money laundering case and subsequent remand to judicial custody.The Court, however, did not pass any directions for removal of Balaji. "The Chief Minister is the repository of the people's faith. political compulsion cannot outweigh the public morality, requirements of good/clean governance and the Constitutional morality. The Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu may be well advised to take a decision about the continuance of V Senthil Balaji (who is in judicial custody) as a Minister without Portfolio, which serves no purpose and which does not augur well with the principles of Constitutional ethos on goodness, good governance and purity in administration," the High Court said.The Court was hearing two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions including one filed by lawyer ML Ravi challenging Balaji’s continuance in the cabinet despite him being in jail under judicial custody..During the previous hearings, the petitioners had cited Article 164 of the Constitution to claim that ministers could continue in office only if the Governor supports such decision. In the present case, they contended, the Governor had explicitly recommended that Balaji be stripped of his portfolio, and that he must not be allowed to continue to function as a minister..In its order on Tuesday, the High Court said that in the absence of any statutory disqualification incurred by Senthil Balaji, it "would not be permissible for the Court to issue certain directions to the Governor to take a decision in a particular manner." Further, the Court also made it clear that it would also be a matter of debate as to whether the Governor can unilaterally disqualify a person officiating as a minister, if such persons has not incurred any disqualification under the Constitution or under any statute.However, the Court added that Balaji continuing as a minister without a portfolio was serving no purpose. "The founding fathers of our Constitution may not have comprehended corrosion of good and clean governance to an extent that a person would be retained as a minister without portfolio, that too while in custody nor did they envisage that the executive head would reward an elected member the status of a minister, though finding him not fit to discharge the responsibilities of a minister. A minister without portfolio is a constitutional travesty," the Court said..Advocates S Sheik Ismail, Shakthivel and T Sivaganansambandan appeared for the PIL petitioners. Senior Counsel R Raghavachari, advocate IS Inbadurai, Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram, State Government Pleader P Muthukumar, and advocate AG Shakeenaa appeared for the respondent State government authorities. .[Read Order]