The refusal of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi to swear in Thiru K. Ponmudi as a Minister has prompted the attention of the Supreme Court. Deep concern was expressed by the apex court today over the Governor's defiance of its order to administer the oath of office to Ponmudi, whose conviction in a disproportionate assets case has been stayed pending appeal.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, admonished the Attorney General, R Venkataramani, for the Governor's actions, questioning how the Governor could disregard the court's order. The Chief Justice highlighted the Governor's obligation to comply with the court's directives, emphasizing that the suspension of Ponmudi's conviction meant he should be eligible for appointment as a Minister.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the Governor's refusal to swear in Ponmudi amounted to a violation of constitutional morality. He emphasized that Ponmudi had been recommended by the Chief Minister for the ministerial position and that the Governor's actions were undermining the democratic process.

In response to the court's admonition, the Attorney General was directed to present the Governor's response in court the following day. The court sought clarification on the Governor's rationale for defying the order to swear in Ponmudi.

The controversy arose after the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister wrote to the Governor, requesting Ponmudi's appointment as a Minister and the allocation of the Higher Education Portfolio to him following the suspension of his conviction. Despite the Chief Minister's recommendation, the Governor has hesitated to administer the oath of office to Ponmudi, citing concerns about his suitability for the position due to allegations of corruption.

The Tamil Nadu government's application to the court highlighted the Governor's failure to comply with constitutional mandates regarding the passage of bills by the State Legislature and the appointment of Ministers. It argued that the Governor's interpretation of the court's order was erroneous and that he was bound by the directives under Articles 142 and 144 of the Constitution of India.

The Governor's questioning of Ponmudi's suitability for ministerial appointment on grounds of alleged corruption has further escalated tensions between the state government and the Governor's office.

Case: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor, Tamil Nadu