‘Cho’ Ramasamy who is exploiting the political congenial situation in Tamil Nadu to perpetuate and promote the Hindu fanaticism here, proclaimed that there are only two manly Chief Ministers in India at present : they are Narendra Modi and Jayalalitha.
Even before the ink of the print of this report in the media got dried up, there has come the strongest stricture from the court of law and justice. The Irony is, such strong condemnation of the Hindu fanaticism goes totally unnoticed by the majority of the Tamil Nadu population, who should be the more appropriate people to register. Here are the excerpts from ‘The Hindu’ dated 20-01-2012.
While dismissing the Gujarat government's petition challenging the Governor's authority to appoint Justice R. A. Mehta the Lokayukta, the Gujarat High Court passed strong strictures on Chief Minister Narendra Modi, terming his efforts to stonewall the appointment of the anti-corruption ombudsman “spiteful” and demonstrative of his “false sense of invincibility.”
Justice V.M. Sahai said on Wednesday: “The clear refusal of the Chief Minister to accept the primacy of opinion of the Chief Justice [of the High Court] had the velocity which had shattered the faith in rule of law which is the essence of democracy and integrity institution of Lokayukta.”
The judge said that looking at the “brazen conduct and irrationality of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister,” he was of the “considered opinion” that the Governor (Kamla Beniwal) “rightly exercised her discretionary powers under Article 163 of the Constitution and appointed Justice (retired) Mehta as Lokayukta.”
Justice Sahai said a “constitutional mini-crisis was sparked off by the Chief Minister” acting arbitrarily. The Governor's action, appointing Justice Mehta the Lokayukta “with or without the advice of the Council of Ministers, was for “preserving our democracy from being beleaguered and to prevent tyranny.”
He said acceptance of the Chief Minister's August 18, 2011 letter to the Chief Justice and the Governor, in which Mr. Modi made it clear that Justice Mehta's name was not acceptable to the government and wanted the Chief Justice to suggest another name, “would have resulted in a complete breakdown of the rule of law and erosion of principles of democracy.”
“The pranks of the Chief Minister demonstrate deconstruction of our democracy and the questionable conduct of stonewalling the appointment of Justice Mehta as Lokayukta threatened the rule of law.” The Chief Minister's refusal to perform his statutory or constitutional obligations, and his efforts at stonewalling the appointment of the Lokayukta by trying to amend the Act through an ordinance, were “depraved and truculent actions. The aforesaid exceptional facts establish that deconstruction of democracy was at work. It was necessary to remove the aporia created by the action of the Chief Minister and a responsible constitutional decision was required to be taken by the Governor so that democracy may thrive.”
Justice Sahai's order said: “For preserving our democracy from being beleaguered and to prevent tyranny, it became absolutely essential for the Governor to exercise her discretion-ary power under Article 163 and to appoint Justice Mehta as Lokayukta, without or contrary to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister as their action and conduct were perilous to our democracy and rule of law.”
Justice Sahai was of the opinion that the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister had shown a “hostile attitude towards the primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice. The Chief Minister acted under a false impression that he could turn down the superiority and primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice which was binding. The spiteful and challenging action demonstrates the false sense of invincibility,” he said.