Nomination of members to Puducherry Assembly by Lt Governor Kiran Bedi upheld

HC says administrator of UT has powers to act independently, irrespective of Ministers’ advice
Puducherry Lt Governor Kiran Bedi | File photo
Puducherry Lt Governor Kiran Bedi | File photo

CHENNAI: Holding that the administrator (Lieutenant Governor) of a Union Territory has powers to act independently, irrespective of the advice given by the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, the First Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday upheld the nomination of three persons as members of the Puducherry Assembly by L-G Kiran Bedi. This is unlike the powers of the President of the country or the Governor of a State.

The Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, which upheld the nomination of V Saminathan, K G Shankar and S Selvaganapathy, also held that under Article 163 of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister is to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except insofar as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them at his discretion.

The Bench was dismissing two writ petitions, one from K Lakshminarayanan, parliamentary secretary to CM, and the other from S Dhanalakshmi, a voter, and allowing three more from the nominated MLAs on Thursday.

While Saminathan is the president and Shankar the treasurer of the local unit of the BJP, Selvaganapathy is the correspondent of Vivekananda Matriculation School and an active member of the local unit of the RSS.
Taking up the Puducherry case, the Bench said the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, can aid the administrator (Bedi) in the exercise of her functions in relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly of the UT has powers to make laws, except insofar as she is required by or under the UT Act to act at her discretion or by or under any law to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Even in such cases, if there is difference of opinion between the administrator and ministers on any matter, the administrator is required to refer the difference to the President of India for a decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President.

If such a decision is pending, it would be competent for the administrator in any case where the matter is in her opinion so urgent that it is necessary for her to take immediate action, to take such action or to give such direction in the matter as she deems necessary. There was not even any request to the administrator to refer the matter to the President. At least that is nobody’s case and records do not indicate anything to the contrary, the Bench said.

Moreover, the administration of oath to the members of the Legislative Assembly is a duty conferred on the administrator under Section 11 of the UT Act. It is not a matter in relation to which the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory has power to make laws, the Bench said.

Who has the powers to nominate MLAs

The First Bench of the Madras High Court has made certain recommendations for consideration by Parliament. It said a clear and unambiguous procedure has to be laid down for nomination of MLAs to Puducherry Assembly, with particular clarity about where it should emanate from and how it should be carried to its logical end.

It has to be laid down with specificity as to who/which office will actually exercise the powers of nomination under Section 3(3) of Union Territories Act, eliminating the need to resort to inferential process, which has become necessary in this case. Qualifications, qualities and credentials, which will go to make a well rounded personality, for qualifying for being nominated as an MLA have to be set out.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com