Governor R.N. Ravi’s stance has stirred political debate, as he withheld his assent on Ponmudi's appointment despite the Supreme Court’s ruling suspending Ponmudi’s conviction in a disproportionate assets case. This ruling had effectively cleared the path for the MLA’s reinstatement, yet the Governor continues to resist the Cabinet’s recommendations, which led the Tamil Nadu government to seek judicial intervention.
Chief Minister M.K. Stalin expressed frustration over the Governor’s hesitation, emphasizing that Article 164(1) of the Constitution mandates the Governor to act in accordance with the Chief Minister’s advice regarding Cabinet appointments. According to this provision, a Governor is required to adhere to the advice of the elected government, and deviations from this constitutional norm risk undermining the democratic framework.
The dispute arose after Ponmudi was convicted by the Madras High Court for accumulating disproportionate assets during his term as a minister. The ruling sentenced both Ponmudi and his wife to three years of imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court later stayed the conviction, noting several discrepancies in the initial judgment and allowing the MLA to resume his role in governance. Despite this, Governor Ravi expressed concerns about the court’s stay, citing that it was merely an interim order and questioning the reinstatement of Ponmudi on these grounds.
The Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister Stalin, has consistently pressed for Ponmudi’s return to the Cabinet, viewing the Governor’s hesitation as unconstitutional. The state's legal representatives, including senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, have now approached the Supreme Court to secure a directive compelling the Governor to swear in Ponmudi.
This clash between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor reflects a broader pattern of confrontations between the state's leadership and Ravi. Earlier, the Governor had delayed the approval of various legislative bills passed by the Cabinet, igniting concerns about the potential overreach of gubernatorial powers in the state. The Tamil Nadu administration, supported by legal experts, contends that the Governor’s authority is largely ceremonial and does not extend to policymaking or overriding the executive’s decisions.
The ongoing battle has drawn significant attention, especially given the historical context of the Governor's role in India. While Governors are constitutionally mandated to act as the representative of the central government in states, they are also bound to function within the constraints of the Constitution. Constitutional experts and former judges have voiced concerns that Governors must remain neutral and avoid political entanglements that could disrupt the balance of power in state governance.
The Supreme Court has, in the past, clarified that Governors must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in all executive matters. The Governor's refusal to comply with Cabinet decisions, therefore, raises important constitutional questions, particularly concerning the limits of gubernatorial discretion.
The case has broader implications for federal relations across India. Similar disputes have occurred in other states, where Governors, often appointed by the central government, find themselves at odds with state administrations. The Tamil Nadu government’s petition could lead to a landmark ruling clarifying the Governor’s role and obligations under India’s Constitution.
As the case now moves to the Supreme Court, all eyes are on Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who has acknowledged the urgency of the situation. The state government’s plea emphasizes the importance of timely judicial intervention to resolve the matter, arguing that the Governor’s prolonged inaction risks creating a constitutional crisis in the state. The Chief Justice is expected to review the case in the coming days, and any directive from the Supreme Court could reshape the power dynamics between Governors and elected state governments nationwide.