TN has raised issues of federal structure being destroyed: SC
NEW DELHI: The Tamil Nadu government has raised serious constitutional questions on the “destruction of federal structure” over Centre’s interference on issues where the governor has disagreed with the state, the Supreme Court noted on Wednesday while disapproving former governor Banwarilal Purohit’s reference of the mercy plea of a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case to the President in January last year.
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai told the Centre that the governor was bound by the decision of the state cabinet on the release of A G Perarivalan, who has served over 30 years of his life term in the assassination case, and refused to agree with the Union government’s suggestion that the court should wait till the President decides on the matter.
“They (Tamil Nadu government) are raising serious constitutional questions on destruction of federal structure by bringing in the Centre. Under Article 161, the governor is bound by the decision of the state cabinet. You have to point out from the Constitution that you (governor) can act contrary to the cabinet’s view. The question is about the power of the governor and not on what the President will do on the reference by the governor,” the bench said.
The top court’s observations came after Perarivalan and the Tamil Nadu government questioned the former governor’s act of referring the mercy plea to the President, three years after the state had recommended the convict’s release.
Perarivalan, who was arrested in June 1991, was released on bail by the top court on March 9 this year. On December 30, 2015, he had submitted a mercy plea under Article 161 to the Tamil Nadu governor and in 2016, had approached the Supreme Court over the delay to decide on his clemency. While the Tamil Nadu government in September 2018 had recommended Perarivalan’s release, Purohit, on January 25, 2021, decided to refer the matter to the President.
The state government condemned Purohit’s action, saying such a step would be detrimental to the “federal setup” envisaged under the Constitution as this would prompt interference from the Centre each time the governor refused to agree with the state on any matter.
Appearing for the Centre, ASG K M Nataraj said that since the former governor had referred the matter to the President, the court may await the decision.
The court, however, said the decision of the President will have no “bearing on these proceedings”. “We cannot shut our eyes to something which is not in accordance with the Constitution as nobody is above law. Whether the governor has power to refer the plea (filed under governor’s power to pardon under Article 161) to the President or not, the Constitution has to be interpreted by this court or the President…Whatever decision the President takes has no bearing on these proceedings,” it said.