R. Prabhakaran vs The Secretary to Govenor, Governor of Tamil Nadu and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

The Registry returned the papers to the Petitioner/party-in-person for clarifying the objections. The party-in-person re-presented the papers with the following endorsement:

"(i). The relief sought is amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in particular Quo Warranto and he got ample powers to interfere when the wrong committed by the respondents, particularly 1st respondent.

(ii). Cause title and prayer is in order."

Therefore, the writ petition is posted before this Court for maintainability.

The petitioner who is an Advocate in person has argued on the question of maintainability as well as on the merits of the matter. He seeks to file the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of Quo-warranto qua the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, alleging that Selvi. J. Jayalalitha continues to be the Chief Minister and thus the present Chief Minister Mr. O. Paneerselvam, could not be sworn in as Chief Minister.

It is averred in the petition that on passing of the order of conviction by the Special Court at Bangalore against Selvi J. Jayalalitha and others, an automatic disqualification is not attracted qua the post of Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, even if she ceases to be a Member of the Assembly. However, it is conceded that a meeting of the Legislative Council being led by the Ruling Party was held, where Thiru O. Paneer Selvam was elected as Chief Minister, which is stated to be constitutionally impermissible.

The petitioner seeks to make a reference to the Judgment of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , to contend that while the imposition of sentence and fine may attract automatic disqualification of a Member of the Legislative Assembly in terms of the said Judgment on account of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, reading down sub-section (4) thereof, it would not be automatically implied that a Chief Minister or for that matter, a Prime Minister would cease to hold the Office. The petitioner does not have any personal knowledge, but claims from the Newspaper reports that Selvi J. Jayalalitha did not tender any resignation. The disqualification being subject to both Article 190(3) and 192(2) of the Constitution of India, it is urged that the opinion of the Election Commission is to be obtained by His Excellency The Governor.

The petitioner, appearing in person, further seeks to urge before us that Selvi J. Jayalalitha was elected as a leader by the masses and is thus entitled to continue as a Chief Minister. He submits that he is entitled to invoke the Quo-warranto jurisdiction in view of the observations in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others, , wherein it has been held that the basic purpose of writ of quo-warranto is to confer jurisdiction on constitutional courts, to ensure that public office is not held by a usurper without any legal authority, and the concept locus standi is inapplicable thereto. He also seeks support from the observations in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Brundaban Nayak Vs. Election Commission of India and Another, , while dealing with Article 192(1) of the Constitution of India to contend that it is not important as to how the question is raised and by whom and under what circumstances, but all that is relevant is that a question of type mentioned by clause should arise.

We have heard the petitioner, party in person, at length in this petition styled as Public Interest Litigation. We find that the present petition is completely a publicity stunt. We are strengthened from the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others, , cited supra itself while dealing with the issue of public interest litigation, wherein after discussing various judgments from paragraph-24 onwards, the conclusions are recorded in paragraph-31 and we find no better method, but to quote the relevant paragraph itself:

"31. Thus, from the aforesaid authorities it is quite vivid that the public interest litigation was initially evolved as a tool to take care of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of the marginalised sections of the society who because of their poverty and illiteracy could not approach the court. In quintessence it was initially evolved to benefit the have-nots and the handicapped for protection of their basic human rights and to see that the authorities carry out their constitutional obligations towards the marginalised sections of people who cannot stand up on their own and come to court to put forth their grievances. Thereafter, there have been various phases as has been stated in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, . It is also perceptible that the Court has taken note of the fact how the public interest litigations have been misutilised to vindicate vested interests for the propagated public interest. In fact, as has been seen, even the people who are in service for their seniority and promotion have preferred public interest litigations. It has also come to the notice of this Court that some persons, who describe themselves as pro bono publico, have approached the Court challenging grant of promotion, fixation of seniority, etc., in respect of third parties."

A reading of Article 191 of the Constitution of India read with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, more specifically Section 8, would show that it provides an automatic disqualification as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. While the petitioner seeks reference of the issue under Section 192 of the Constitution of India, that would be applicable only where a question arises as to whether the Leader of the House of Legislature or any other Member of the House has not been disqualified. In fact, the petitioner concedes in a sense to the disqualification having been incurred, but seeks to contend that she is still entitled to continue to be the Chief Minister of the State.

It is not as if Selvi J. Jayalalitha is devoid of legal assistance, if she was seeking to raise such an issue about her right to continue as Chief Minister of the State. She was elected by the Constituent College of elected Legislators to be the Chief Minister. The present Chief Minister has also been elected by the Constituent Member of the College. Once such an election has taken place, it is not a case where it can at all be said that the present Chief Minister is holding Office without any authority of law, which alone can be the basis for issuing a writ of quo-warranto. The petitioner himself has referred to the Press Release issued by the Raj Bhavan dated 28.09.2014, whereby Thiru O. Pannerselvam is stated to have met the Governor of Tamil Nadu and submitted a letter along with the resolution passed by the AIADMK Legislators, in which he has been unanimously elected as leader of the AIADMK Party. This fact has not been disputed by anyone - that he has not been so elected, nor is it the contention of Selvi J. Jayalalitha, the former Chief Minister. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits and we say no more as to why such a petition has been filed.

We thus dismiss the writ petition. No costs.