Search the Internet          Tips

PIL challenges Jaya appointment

The petition, filed by a advocate V Selvaraj, which came up for hearing on Tuesday, contended that a person disqualified to be a member of the legislature could not be appointed chief minister.

When the writ petition came up for maintainability, a vacation bench comprising Justices K P Sivasubramanian and A K Rajan directed that it be posted for hearing in the first week of June after the summer vacation.

Stating that he could not hear the petition for "personal" reasons, Sivasubramanian, however, held that the petition was maintainable and directed it to be posted before another bench. He had prosecuted her while he was public prosecutor.

"The appointment of Jayalalitha as chief minister is illegal, untenable and injurious to the democratic system and rule of law," the petition said.

Besides, Selvaraj said it would be difficult for the special judges to hear pending cases against Jayalalitha, when the chief minister stood before them as an accused.

The petitioner contended that Articles 173, 190, 191 and 164 of the Constitution make it clear that a person disqualified to be a legislator cannot be sworn-in as chief minister on the pretext that he or she has six months to become a member of the legislative assembly.

He said the convention that the majority party leader was normally invited to form the government could not be applied in the case of Jayalalitha, since she had been convicted and sentenced by a court and hence disqualified from being elected as an MLA under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act.

Charging the Tamil Nadu Governor with creating a constitutional and legal crisis in the state by swearing-in Jayalalitha as chief minister on May 14, the petitioner said the Centre too had failed to intervene and protect the Constitution.

Stating that a Governor was required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law, the petitioner said the Governor cannot ignore the Constitution and swear-in a person as chief minister merely because his or her party has won a majority in the elections.

The petitioner also prayed that the court direct Jayalalitha to explain under what authority she uses, enjoys and performs the rights, duties and privileges of the office of chief minister of the state.

Tell us what you think of this report