As the state government continues to remain adamant over its stand on restoring the office of Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar as State Election Commissioner(SEC) despite the Governor’s directions, the political and constitutional row continues to linger.
As per the High Court instructions, Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar met Governor and submitted a representation requesting him to intervene. The Governor has clearly directed the state government to take necessary action as per the High Court orders.
The YSR Congress picks up a row over the semantics in the content of the Governors letter to state government. The ruling party argues that the Governor has not explicitly ordered for the restoration of Ramesh Kumar’s position.
Certainly, it would have been better if the august office of the Governor has taken a proactive initiative to convince the state government so as to put an end to this unpleasant standoff and prevent squandering away of people’s money over undesirable and unnecessary legal rigmarole.
But, Governor in his own wisdom has chosen to issue a very formal direction, perhaps with an intention to keep himself away from the acrimonious political slug fest. The governor cannot be faulted for this rather cautious approach.
But, this cautious approach of the governor does not rob the essence from his orders. He has clearly instructed the government to implement the high court orders. The Para 318 of the high court order clearly states, ” The Respondent-State is directed to restore the position of Dr.N.Ramesh Kumar as State Election Commissioner and allow him to continue in the office until completion of the tenure.”
The state government certainly has the right to appeal in the apex court over the high court orders and did so too. But, supreme court refused to stay the high court orders. In the absence of any such stay from the higher court, the high court orders remain in force. Non compliance of these orders tantamount to contempt of court on the part of the state government as per article 215 of the Constitution.
As per the Supreme court order in Narmada Bacaho Andolan vs Union of India,1999, any misrepresentation or incomplete interpretation of court orders also amount to contempt of court. Non compliance of its orders weaken the authority of court, which will also be construed as contempt of court as per apex court judgment in EMS Namboodiripad vs TN Nambiar, 1970.
Recent Random Post:
