Why Supreme Court said Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi was openly defying its order

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was seriously concerned about the conduct of the Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi who has refused to re-induct Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K Ponmudi into the State cabinet even after his conviction in a criminal case was stayed by the top court last week. [State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu and anr].A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pulled up the Governor saying he was "defying the Supreme Court of India" by his actions.It further said that when a conviction is stayed by a court, the Governor has no business to say otherwise. "We are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor. He is defying the Supreme Court of India. When conviction is stayed, then Governor has no business saying otherwise. Our order only has to be implemented," the Court said mincing no words..The Court further asked how a constitutional functionary can act like this and reiterated that Governor was the only a titular head who is expected to carry out the elected government's decisions."Are we governed by the rule of law! How can any constitution functionary say like this.. our order has to be given effect to... It is not about subjective perception about the minister etc. the Governor is a titular head and he has the power to counsel (the government). That is all," the CJI said.The Court told Centre's top law officer, Attorney General R Venkataramani that the Court will take a very serious view of Ravi's conduct. "Mr. Attorney General, what are you doing ? Conviction is stayed by the Supreme Court and he [Governor] says he will not swear him in? We have to observe something then. Please tell your Governor we have to take a serious view of it".Venkataramani then requested the Court to keep the matter tomorrow..The top court also questioned how the Governor could have said that Ponmudi's re-induction into the cabinet was against constitutional morality when the Supreme Court itself had stayed his conviction."If we don't hear in a positive manner by tomorrow setting the Constitutional position right, then we have to pass an order We have to pass an order then," the CJI warned. .The Court was hearing Tamil Nadu (TN) government's application seeking directions to the Governor to re-induct Ponmudy into the State cabinet on the basis of the Chief Minister MK Stalin's recommendation.The application pointed out the Governor’s refusal to appoint Ponmudi as a minister after his conviction in a disproportionate assets case was stayed by the Supreme Court on March 11. Ponmudi was the State Higher Education Minister before he was convicted by the Madras High Court in December 2023 and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The sentence meant he incurred automatic disqualification as a legislator, leading to his removal as the minister.Following the stay on his conviction last week by the top court, Ponmudi's membership in the State legislature was restored. CM Stalin then asked the Governor to administer oath to Ponmudi once again. However, Governor Ravi refused on the ground that Ponmudi's conviction had only been stayed and not set aside.He is also stated to have said that Ponmudi is “tainted of corruption” and that his appointment would be against “constitutional morality”.He is also stated to have said that Ponmudi is “tainted of corruption” and that his appointment would be against “constitutional morality”.In its application before the top court, the TN government contended that interpretation given by the Governor to an order of the Supreme Court amounted to acting as “a super appellate authority”.The State also questioned the Governor’s objection to the suitability of Ponmudi as a minister and argued that it is well settled that when it comes to appointment of a Minister, the suitability of the person to be appointed can only be assessed only by the Chief Minister and not the Governor..Appearing for the State in the application against Governor's refusal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted,"This will shock your conscience milords".Singhvi also questioned that why the State should be compelled to approach the Supreme Court each time."Is this diarchy in Tamil Nadu ... so that two swords have to be kept together?" the senior counsel asked..The application before the top court by the State was filed in a pending petition pending before the Supreme Court over the Governor’s delay in granting assent to the Bills passed by the TN Legislative Assembly, and not approving premature release of prisoners despite government recommendation. .During the hearing today, AG Venkataramani objected to filing of the application in the pending writ petition and asked which fundamental right were being violating by not administering oath to Ponmudi.However, the CJI said the State could also file a suit for the same purpose. As Venkataramani continued to raise questions regarding the State approaching the top court in an already pending case, Singhvi said,"The last person speaking about Constitutional morality is someone who is appearing for the Governor."Singhvi further argued that an automatic act of swearing in was being "stayed" by the Governor and such an instance has not happened in the last 75 years."And now the only defence is that this is an interlocutory application etc! Primacy of elected government is part of the basic structure," he added..AG Venkataramani said that he could not close eyes to this aspect of the application having been filed in a pending matter.But the CJI said, "What should we close our eyes to .. The virtual breach of constitution by the Governor or the technicalities faced by Mr Singhvi.".The Court then adjourned the matter to Friday.