Better sense prevails: on the resignation of Tamil Nadu Ministers

The resignation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister V. Senthilbalaji and Forest Minister K. Ponmudy from the Cabinet on Sunday, after adverse remarks of the Supreme Court and Madras High Court on different issues, is a matter of relief to the advocates of morality and propriety in public life. Their continuance in power would have caused great embarrassment to the DMK government, led by M.K. Stalin. Mr. Senthilbalaji’s exit came on the eve of the expiry of the deadline fixed by the Court last week to choose between his post and his freedom while Mr. Ponmudy’s departure came as the High Court, while directing the Registry to take up a suo motu writ petition regarding a derogatory speech delivered by him, observed that he had, prima facie, misused the liberty granted to him by the Court which had stayed his conviction as well as the sentence in a corruption case. Everyone in public life should uphold the dignity of the office they hold. Mr. Ponmudy evidently overlooked the importance of this principle. Mr. Senthilbalaji is on a sticky wicket, as the proceedings against him — both in respect of allegedly receiving kickbacks for jobs in the State transport corporations during his earlier tenure as Transport Minister (2011-15) in the Jayalalithaa Cabinet and money laundering — are in progress after the Court’s nod about two years ago.

Corruption may not have been viewed by some as an issue that bothers the common man. Such a view may have been grounded in the fact that many politicians, accused of corruption, are successful in electoral politics and know how to stay in power. But, this perception cannot deter courts of law from proceeding against those involved in acts of corruption. Rightly, in September 2022, the Court held that “corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and society at large”. At that time, the Court ordered the restoration of a criminal complaint quashed by the Madras High Court against Mr. Senthilbalaji and others accused of taking bribes in exchange for jobs in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation. Even though there are many anti-corruption activists, it appears that under the given circumstances, only the courts of law can effectively act against those in power for corruption. At times, interventions by courts against corruption might appear as acts of judicial overreach. But the episode concerning Mr. Senthilbalaji and Mr. Ponmudy, underscores the point that the top political executive in any State and at the Centre should show zero tolerance towards corruption.