Madras HC rejects plea to appoint full-time TN governor

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Apr 22 2017 | 4:48 PM IST
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking appointment of a full-time Governor for Tamil Nadu, holding that the Constitution provides for appointment of the same person as Governor of two states.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, rejected the writ petition filed by journalist and social activist V Anbazhagan.
The petition sought a court direction to the President and the Union Home Ministry to appoint a full-time Governor for Tamil Nadu by implementing the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission.
When the matter came up last week, the bench said, "Article 153 of the Constitution of India provides that there shall be a Governor for each state. The proviso makes it clear that nothing in that Article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more states."
Noting that appointment of a Governor is in the realm of powers of the office of the President of India, the bench said, "In view of the proviso to Article 153 of the Constitution of India, the interference of the court is not warranted."
Earlier, the petitioner had submitted that Maharashtra Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao has been holding additional charge of Tamil Nadu for the past seven months and hence there was no "effective administration of the executive".
He also pointed out that as per Article 154 of the Constitution, the executive power of the state shall be vested with the Governor and it shall be exercised by him either directly or through the officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution.
Dismissing the petition, the bench further said, "In the writ petition or the documents appended thereto, there is not a whisper of how and in what manner the executive functions of the state of Tamil Nadu have been impaired by reason of appointment of CH Vidyasagar Rao, who is the Governor of the state of Maharashtra as well as the Governor of the state of Tamil Nadu.
"Our interference is therefore not warranted in view of the Constitutional Provision of Article 153 read with the proviso thereto," the bench said.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 22 2017 | 4:48 PM IST

Next Story