G. A. Jagannathan vs Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
G.A. Jagannathan - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 12052 of 2021 & WMP. No. 12828 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :N. Gnanasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Shankaranarayanan, Assistant Solicitor General assisted by V. Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel, N. Mala, Special Government Pleader, Raghavachari, Aravindh, Advocates.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of article 102 , 80 , 80(3) and 77(3) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 153A, 171F , 171E , 376D , 376C , 376A , 376B , sub-section (2) of section 376 , 505 and 498A Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 11 - Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10 to 12, 4 and 3 - Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 - Section 6 - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 - section 3 and 2 - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Offence of committing terrorist acts - Offence of bribery - Offence of undue influence or personation at an election - offence of making statement creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or offence relating to such statement in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies - Trigger for the filing of this Writ Petition is the issuance of notification by Union of India/R1 nominating three members to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry - Nominees are members of is a Union Territory and its Legislative Assembly comprises 30 elected and three nominated members. General elections to the Legislative Assembly were held in April emerged as single largest party - Electorate returned members to Legislative Assembly - Swearing-in of the elected MLAs as well as the formation of the Cabinet remains to be completed - It was impugned nomination R3, R4 and R5 respectively, as MLAs took place, (the private respondents being referred to hereinafter by name, collectively as ‘nominees’ or by way of their rank – Held, term ‘suitability’ is difficult of precise definition and there is an element of subjectivity that is involved in assessing the same. The Bench has opined that the nomination of a candidate assumes his or her suitability in every relevant aspect of the matter - Allegation of unsuitability goes to the very fundamentals of the matter and the candidate nominated is shown to be ex-facie and patently unsuitable, such that his/her nomination would rebel against one’s conscience, the question of the Court reviewing the suitability of a candidate does not arise - nominees admittedly, do not attract the specific statutory disqualifications and their alleged unsuitability is in general and non-specific terms - May state that the only grievance of the petitioner appears to be the nominees are members of the BJP - Chief Minister had tested positive for COVID-19 and had been admitted in the hospital and the Legislative Assembly and Cabinet had not been sworn in/constituted at the time when the nominations were made - This is more a challenge to propriety rather than one of law – Writ Petition is dismiss.

JUDGMENT :

Anita Sumanth, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of declaration, declaring the notification dated 10.05.2021 issued by the 1st respondent nominating the respondents 3 to 5 herein as Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry published in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 10.05.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and unconstitutional.

1. This Writ Petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by one Thiru G.A.Jagannathan, who was earlier holding the post of President of the Karikalampakkam Village, Puducherry.

2. The trigger for the filing of this Writ Petition is the issuance of notification dated 10.05.2021 by the Union of India/R1 on 10.05.2021, nominating three members to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry. The nominees are members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (‘BJP’).

3. Puducherry is a Union Territory and its Legislative Assembly comprises 30 elected and three nominated members. General elections to the Legislative Assembly were held in April 2021, wherein the N.Rangasamy Congress (‘NR Congress’) emerged as the single largest party. The Electorate returned members to the Legislative Assembly as follows: NR Congress -10, BJP - 6, Indian National Congress (INC) - 2, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) - 6, Independent - 1 and Others - 5.

4. NR Congress being the single largest party, formed the Government with the support of six (6) BJP MLAs and the single independent candidate, Thiru N.Rangasamy. Post constitution of the Legislative Assembly, Thiru Rangasamy was sworn in as Chief Minister on 07.05.2021.

5. It appears that the Chief Minister tested positive for COVID –19 on 10.05.2021 and was admitted in a private hospital in Chennai. The swearing-in of the elected MLAs as well as the formation of the Cabinet remains to be completed. It was on 10.05.2021 that the impugned nomination of Thiru. K.Venkatesan, Thiru.V.P.Ramalingam and Thiru.R.V.Ashok Babu, R3, R4 and R5 respectively, as MLAs took place, (the private respondents being referred to hereinafter by name, collectively as ‘nominees’ or by way of their rank in the writ petition) with the Central Government exercising powers in terms of Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (‘1963 Act’).

6. All learned counsels were ready for a final hearing even when the matter had come up for admission and it is thus that we proceeded to hear the parties in detail and dispose the Writ Petition finally, by way of this order.

7. Heard Mr.N.Gnanasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, learned Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India/R1, Ms.N.Mala, learned Special Government Pleader for the Union of India represented by the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry/R2, Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel for Mr.Venkatesan and Mr.V.P.Ramalingam/R3 and R4, and Mr.Aravindh, learned counsel for Mr.Ashok Babu/R5.

8. The petitioner challenges their nomination on the grounds that (i) all three nominees are members of the BJP (ii) Thiru K.Venkatesan is a former DMK MLA (iii) Thiru V.P.Ramalingam is the brother of the Ex-Assembly Speaker Thiru V.P.Sivakozhundu (iv) Thiru Ashok Babu, an advocate, is a BJP leader (v) The nominees do not have a ‘good background’(vi) Thiru.K.Venkatesan has been implicated in a criminal case involving a ‘heinous crime’(vii) Nomination should be from among jurists, academicians, economists and social reformers, to add to the value of the House and enrich it in the fields of law, administration and social reform and, (viii) there was no urgency to have nominated members at a point in time when the Government had itself not been formed and the Chief Minister, in hospital. We clarify at this juncture, that the Legislative Assembly had not been sworn-in at the time when thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3269

Cases Referred (1)