The game is over for late Jayalalithaa's aide, Sasikala Natarajan. Tamil Nadu's Governor in-charge, C Vidyasagar Rao stands vindicated. The waiting game he played over the past 10 days has paid off.
When a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning declared Sasikala and two of her relatives guilty and sentenced them to four years rigorous imprisonment, she stood disqualified for six years.
She cannot contest elections till then. In her last ditch revenge against antagonist and caretaker Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, Sasikala held a meeting of her captive MLAs at the beach-side resort, soon after getting the verdict, and chose PWD Minister Edappadi Palaniswami as the leader of the legislature party in her place. The ball is back in the Governor's court and he should perhaps go for a comprehensive floor test.
The Supreme Court Solves the Political Tangle
The focus is not on who becomes the Chief Minister, but how can we prevent such a political and constitutional crisis from recurring. Ultimately, it was the Supreme Court which decided the issue for the Governor.
And this is neither the first time nor the last time this may happen. What happened to former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD leader Lalu Prasad, or more recently, the crises in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), remains a stark reminder of how the courts continue to play a leading role in resolving political tangles caused by splits in a ruling party.
In the case of Lalu Prasad, it was the Supreme Court which handed him the disqualification. Again, it was the apex court which restored power to the Chief Ministers of Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, also upholding the decisions of the Speaker in disqualifying rebel legislators. What happened in Arunachal was even more complex and complicated.
At the bottom of the present turmoil in Tamil Nadu was Sasikala’s sudden urge to become Chief Minister. She had already become General Secretary of the ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kaghagam or AIADMK. She also wanted to be the Chief Minister and take over both the party and its government as the single centre of power.
It was on Sunday, 5 February, that she held a meeting of the legislature party and got elected as its leader. She lost no time in staking claim to form a government. But the Governor decided to stay away from Tamil Nadu for the next five days before seeing her in person.
To his surprise, caretaker Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, whose resignation was already accepted, declared that he was forced to resign – that the resignation was secured under duress.
Sasikala Contesting Elections
More than the issue of whether such a resignation letter could be withdrawn, the Governor seemed to have been preoccupied with the question of whether Sasikala could contest an election. Though there is no bar on a non-legislator being elected as the leader, he or she should get elected within six months.
Apart from the constitutional duty of swearing in the leader of the largest party within a reasonable period of time, he had to ensure that person so elected should provide a stable government. The Governor perhaps wondered if Sasikala would be disqualified by the Supreme Court, and decided to wait for the judgment.
So why was Sasikala in a hurry? One strong view is that she wanted to be a Chief Minister, even if only for a few days, so that she would be entitled to some privileges in prison, if convicted.
That could not happen and she will not be entitled to any special privileges. Now she wants her man as Chief Minister so that Jayalalithaa’s Poes Garden residence remains with her and does not become a memorial as the people and Panneerselvam want.
Bommai Judgment of the SC
What are the lessons from this crisis. The Bommai judgment of the Supreme Court has remained a benchmark for years now. Is it not yet time for Parliament to take a closer and comprehensive look at the electoral laws?
It is not enough to talk about electoral reforms and funding of elections. There has to be a review of the Representation of People's Act as well. It is not enough to say that those convicted cannot contest the elections. Greater clarity is needed on the role of Governors and the election of leaders.
Especially when the ruling party appoints its own elderly leaders as Governors, the rules have to be laid down very clearly. It is again not enough to say that the floor test must by in the House and not Raj Bhavan, but to spell out the path a Governor should walk.
While there is certainly need for some discretion, it cannot be arbitrary. Is it time to say only a sitting member of the legislature should be elected leader?
We have had distinguished leaders such as Rajagopalachari and CN Annadurai becoming Chief Ministers without being MLAs. Even Dr Manmohan Singh was not an MP when he became Prime Minister and was elected to the Rajya Sabha. He reigned for 10 years without ever getting elected by the people.
It is now fashionable to project a certain leader as the Chief Ministerial candidate. But that is now always possible because of the pulls and pressures within the party. But it should still be possible to elect a leader from within the legislature party. If a leader whom the party wants to become Chief Minister has not contested the election, he or she could get elected and the become Chief Minister in due course.
But it is time to resolve this crisis once and for all and better sooner than later.
(Chennai-based V Jayanth is a former senior managing editor of The Hindu. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)