Petition filed to quash appointment of OPS as Deputy CM of Tamil Nadu

The Madras High Court has been moved to quash the recent appointment of O Paneerselvam (popularly called ‘OPS’) as Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petition, filed by Advocate V Elangovan, contends that the appointment amounts to a violation of the Constitution..Political turmoil had been reigning in Tamil Nadu since the passing of erstwhile Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in 2016. O Paneerselvam had initially been appointed as her successor, but was however forced to step down after his expulsion from the party in February this year. Following this, the petition points out, he broke out of the ruling AIADMK faction and formed his own opposing faction. In his place, incumbent Chief Minister E Palaniswami was appointed..However, the two factions recently united after Paneerselvam was sworn in as Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on August 21 this year. The petitioner has submitted that the appointment was made following prolonged negotiations between the warring factions led by the Chief Minister..The petitioner has contended that the appointment is invalid given that the post of Deputy Chief Minister is not envisioned anywhere in the Constitution. Placing emphasis on Article 164 of the Constitution, it has been submitted that the law only provides for the appointment of a Chief Minister and a Council of Ministers, as far as states are concerned. Schedule III of the Constitution therefore only provides for oaths to be sworn by Ministers of State..Moreover, the petitioner has challenged the form of oath taken by OPS during his swearing-in ceremony, in which he specifically refers to himself as the Deputy Chief Minister. Such an oath cannot be found in the Constitution and is bad in law, the petition suggests..The petitioner has described the post of Deputy Chief Minister as one created for a political purpose without any constitutional mandate. Hence, even if designated as the Deputy Chief Minister, the petitioner emphasises that OPS ought to have taken oath only as a Minister of State. However, since he did not swear an oath as a Minister of State, his appointment has been contended as devoid of legal authority..For these reasons, the petitioner has prayed that a writ of Quo Warranto be issued by the Court, calling upon Paneerselvam to show under what authority of law he holds the office of the Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu..It can be noted that this is not the first time that a Deputy Chief Minister has been appointed in Tamil Nadu. Between 2009 and 2011, MK Stalin occupied the post when his father, M Karunanidhi, was Chief Minister. However, that appointment had been made owing to the poor health of the Chief Minister at the time..In India, various persons have been appointed as Deputy Chief Minister from time to time. Similar concerns were raised when two Deputy Chief Ministers were appointed in Karnataka during the tenure of Chief Minister Jagadish Shettar in 2012. Manish Sisodia has been occupying the post of Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi since 2015. Most recently, Sushil Modi was appointed Deputy CM in Nitish Kumar’s Bihar government..Similar appointments have also been made at the central level, although the Constitution does not expressly provide for such an office. Prior to the enforcement of the Constitution, Sardar Vallabhai Patel occupied office as the first Deputy Prime Minister. In the post-Constitutional era, Morarji Desai was the first to function as Deputy Prime Minister during the first tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi..It is also noteworthy that a similar dispute was raised in the case of KM Sharma v Devi Lal, wherein the oath taken by then Deputy Prime Minister, Devi Lal was challenged for not adhering to the format provided by the Constitution in Schedule III..Devi Lal occupied the post under Prime Minister VP Singh. In his oath, Devi Lal referred to himself as the Upa Pradhan Mantri i.e. Deputy Prime Minister, as opposed to the constitutionally prescribed Mantri i.e. Minister for State. As with the case at hand, this was challenged as vitiating his oath and his post..The Supreme Court in this case, however, upheld the oath on the ground that the substantial part of the oath adhered to the Constitutional mandate. The verdict made a distinction made between the non-essential descriptive part of an oath and the essential substantial part of an oath..It was pointed out that a Deputy Prime Minister was “…like other members of the Council of Ministers though he has been described as Deputy Prime Minister but the description of him as Deputy Prime Minister does not confer on him any powers of the Prime Minister.” Hence the designation title Deputy Prime Minister was merely descriptive, and an error in this aspect did not vitiate the oath..Read the affidavit of the Writ Petition filed below:.Image taken from here.