M A I N   N E W S

What if Jaya is disqualified: SC
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 5
A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the constitutionality of appointment of Ms J. Jayalalitha as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, today asked the Attorney-General, Mr Soli J. Sorabjee to address the judges on the consequences in the eventuality of the court holding her appointment to be void ab initio.

On Mr Sorabjee’s instant response that Ms Jayalalitha could not continue to hold the office of Chief Minister in that event, Mr Justice S. P. Bharucha, heading the Bench, said: “But would the state government be considered to have continued without a government all these months?”

With reference to another response of Mr Sorabjee that the doctrine of de facto would apply to the situation, the Bench observed: “It is not a question involving one individual. The whole Cabinet is wiped out. Other consequences also follow. We want you to address us on those points. You ponder over it. We will also think over it. We are entitled to ask for a reply from you and the Bar.”

Attorney-General Sorabjee, who has been asked to assist the court in the matter, earlier contended: “A disqualified person cannot be chosen as a Member of Parliament or the state legislature. Our constitutional scheme interdicts the selection and appointment of a person who has incurred disqualification as a Member of Parliament. A disqualified person cannot be a representative of the electorate.”

“The silent immaculate premise of our Constitution is that a person who has been convicted by a court of law of a grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude cannot be appointed a member, much less a Chief Minister. In other words, there is an implied inhibition in Article 164(1) prohibiting the appointment as Chief Minister of a person who has been convicted of a grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude and the conviction is subsisting and operative on the date of appointment”, Mr Sorabjee submitted.

He further argued that the implied prohibition arose from our constitutional structure and scheme which maintained that the rule of law as well as responsible and representative parliamentary democracy were essential features of the Constitution. “If a person is appointed in breach of the constitutional prohibition, the appointment is bad and void ab initio. It is honest. Subsequent events cannot obliterate or overcome the initial incompetency or incapacity of the person”, he added.

In another significant submission, Mr Sorabjee stated: “This Hon’ble Court should decline to interpret constitutional provisions in a manner which would attribute to the founding fathers an intention to permit persons who have committed grave criminal offences involving moral turpitude to head the government at the Centre or in the states. Such an interpretation would strike at the root of democracy and the rule of law and should be eschewed.”

Solicitor-General Harish Salve, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that Article 164 empowered the Governor to appoint only such a person as Chief Minister who was qualified on the date of his or her appointment. This power had to be exercised keeping in view the constitutional mandate, he said.

“Unlimited power to any constitutional authority, including the Governor, is unknown to our Constitution”, he added.

Mr K.K. Venugopal, Senior Counsel, appearing for Ms Jayalalitha, contended that the only question a Governor should take into consideration was whether the person chosen for appointment as Chief Minister enjoyed the majority support of the legislature party.

The counsel submitted that the Governor could not go into the adjudicatory process whether the person was qualified or disqualified to become a member of the House.

He said the Madras High Court by its order dated April 11 on an application of Ms Jayalalitha had said that the sentence and conviction were inseparable. In view of this order, she did not suffer any disqualification. As this order was not appealed, it had become final and the Governor was bound by it.

Mr Venugopal further argued that decisions of the President or the Governor could not be questioned in a court of law. He will resume his arguments tomorrow.

5 of family choose death to starvation
Santosh Jha

Patna, September 5
State government officials here feel proud to announce that Bihar has not a single case of starvation death however, suicide cases driven by extreme poverty and implicit starvation threat have mounted in the state and deaths owing to economic miseries are reported every second-third day.

Five persons of a family apparently committed suicide on Monday at Sakara village of the Nawada district. The brother of the deceased family head, Mr Bal Krishan Prasad informed that his brother, Mundirka Singh was found under the influence of poison along with his wife, two daughters and a son outside the village and after the villagers informed them they were taken to the hospital where they died. The family had gone to the nearest hospital for treatment of Mundirka’s wife, Kalo Devi.

The Nawada police informed on Tuesday that the Police Captain, Mr J. S. Gangwar had reached the spot and ordered post-mortem of the five dead bodies. The DSP, Mr Subodh Prasad said the police are looking into the factors that led to their ‘suicide’.