New Delhi, September 6
The five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court hearing the constitutional validity of AIADMK chief, Ms J. Jayalalitha’s appointment as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, today emphasised that the will of the people must stand subordinated to the Constitution and the people’s mandate would prevail provided it was not in conflict with the Constitution.

The Bench headed by Mr Justice S.P. Bharucha told the senior counsel, Mr K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Ms J. Jayalalitha and vehemently defending her appointment as must by then Governor Ms Fatima Beevi on May 14 as the choice of the electorate, “The Constitution is supreme and that is what we are interpreting. Please restrict your argument to the Constitution and the question of law. We are not going into the aspect of the argument of the lady having been elected by an overwhelming majority”.

The Bench, including Mr Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Mr Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Ms Justice Ruma Pal and Mr Justice Brijesh Kumar, proposed to consider imposing moral values for people holding public offices and asserted that the court might be constitutionally obliged to debar corrupt and convicted persons from holding high constitutional offices through judicial intervention.

The judges went to the extent of suggesting the scrapping of the Constitution and Section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act debarring disqualified persons from contesting, if there was no option before the Governor but to administer the oath of office to a person irrespective of disqualification as contended by Mr Venugopal.

The judges at one stage of proceedings expressing concern on the non-examination of disqualification by the Governor of a person to be appointed as CM said: “Today we are confronted with a case of disqualification on account of two or three years’ imprisonment for conviction in a corruption case, but tomorrow there may be a situation when we may have to deal with disqualification arising out of murder and other criminal offences.”

“Where will all this lead to”, Mr Justice Bharucha observed and added that it was difficult to accept the proposition of the counsel that Ms Jayalalitha could be appointed by the Governor irrespective of her disqualification.

When the counsel argued that the issue of disqualification on account of Ms Jayalalitha’s conviction was not before the Governor, the Bench said: “In that case, you ought to have waited with dignity, the result of the appeals filed against her conviction by the trial court.”

Earlier, Mr Venugopal argued that the issue of all pervading corruption in the country was irrelevant today and what was relevant was the people’s mandate when the electorate firmly believed that his client had been wrongly and falsely convicted in the Tansi and Pleasant Stay Hotel case.

Mr Venugopal submitted that the disqualification of his client did not operate till the final verdict on the appeals by the superior courts. He said the discretion of the Governor to invite the leader of the legislature party was absolute and unfettered and could not be subjected to judicial review.