Court’s Decision
The Telangana High Court quashed the appointment of the respondent as Minister under Article 164(1) read with 164(4) of the Constitution of India, declaring it illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio. The Court held that the individual, who was neither a member of the legislature nor had the potential to be elected within the stipulated six-month period, could not be validly appointed as a Minister. The Court emphasized, “Article 164(4) does not permit appointment of a Minister who is not qualified to be elected as a Member of the Legislature.” It directed that all records treating him as a Minister be corrected accordingly.
Facts
The writ petition challenged the swearing-in and continuance of the respondent as a Minister in the State Government of Telangana despite not being elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly at the time of appointment and having no realistic possibility of being elected within six months. The respondent was appointed as a Minister under Article 164(4) of the Constitution and assumed charge on 18.09.2021. However, at that time, he was neither a member of the Legislative Assembly nor had he contested any election. Subsequently, the petitioner argued that the appointment was in violation of constitutional provisions and democratic principles.
The petitioner, a concerned citizen, approached the Court alleging that the impugned appointment was merely a political manoeuvre to appease party loyalists and circumvent constitutional mandates. The respondent, despite lacking a public mandate, was provided ministerial perks, power, and privileges under the garb of Article 164(4), thereby undermining the spirit of representative democracy.
Issues
- Whether a person who is not a member of the legislature can be appointed as a Minister under Article 164(4) of the Constitution without any intention or possibility of being elected within six months.
- Whether the respondent’s appointment as Minister was violative of constitutional provisions and democratic ethos.
- Whether the Governor’s discretion under Article 164(1) can override express constitutional limitations under Article 164(4).
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that Article 164(4) is a narrow exception that permits a non-legislator to be appointed as a Minister for a maximum period of six months, provided he has the qualification and intent to contest and win an election during that period. The respondent, at the time of swearing-in, was not an elected member nor did he make any bona fide attempt to get elected to the legislature. His appointment, thus, violated both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The petitioner also submitted that the appointment was politically motivated, designed to confer ministerial power and benefits on a person lacking a public mandate. He emphasized that allowing such appointments would erode the accountability mechanisms central to a parliamentary democracy, where Ministers are answerable to the legislature.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent contended that his appointment was within the constitutional framework and that Article 164(4) permits the Governor to swear in a Minister who is not a legislator. He maintained that there was no legal requirement that such a person must immediately contest an election or have a pending by-election. Further, the respondent submitted that the Court could not sit in judgment over the Governor’s satisfaction or discretion exercised under Article 164(1).
It was also argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the writ petition was politically motivated, being an abuse of the process of law. The respondent claimed that his appointment was made in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister and that the Governor was not bound to inquire into the prospects of election within six months.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of Article 164(1) and (4) of the Constitution. Article 164(4) allows a person who is not a member of the legislature to be appointed a Minister for a maximum period of six months, within which he must get elected to the House. The Court stressed that this provision cannot be misused to appoint unelected individuals in perpetuity, who have no prospect or intention of seeking electoral legitimacy.
It held that Article 164(4) is an enabling provision that must be strictly construed to preserve the sanctity of representative governance. The Governor’s power under Article 164(1) must operate in consonance with constitutional checks, and not in disregard of Article 164(4).
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in:
- Har Sharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh, (1971) 1 SCC 616 – where the Court had acknowledged that an unelected person could be made a Minister but emphasized that the appointment must be a stop-gap arrangement with the intention to seek election.
- S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, (1996) 6 SCC 734 – upheld the appointment of an unelected Prime Minister provided he seeks election within six months.
- B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231 – which held that a person disqualified from contesting elections under law cannot be appointed as Chief Minister, even under Article 164(4).
The High Court distinguished these decisions on the facts and clarified that while such appointments are permissible in law, they are contingent on the individual being otherwise qualified and making sincere efforts to obtain an electoral mandate within six months.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that allowing such appointments without scrutiny would defeat the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. It held that the respondent’s continuance as Minister was a “colourable exercise of constitutional power” and an abuse of the exception carved out under Article 164(4). The Court observed:
“If the person has no intention or possibility of being elected, then the appointment is not just unconstitutional but fraudulent on the Constitution.”
It further observed that the Governor’s role under Article 164(1) is not unfettered and must conform to constitutional morality and judicially enforceable limits.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court quashed the appointment of the respondent as Minister, declaring it to be void ab initio. The Court directed the State Government to rectify all records and withdraw all benefits and privileges conferred on the respondent in his capacity as a Minister. The judgment reiterated that public office is not a privilege but a responsibility that must be backed by democratic legitimacy.
Implications
This judgment is a significant reinforcement of constitutional limits on executive appointments. It clarifies that Article 164(4) is not a backdoor entry for unelected individuals into positions of power. The ruling serves as a caution against the misuse of constitutional exceptions for political patronage and upholds the core tenets of representative democracy.
Referred Cases and Their Significance
- Har Sharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh – Upheld that a non-legislator can be a Minister for six months, but only with intent to contest elections.
- S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda – Confirmed the constitutionality of an unelected PM provided he becomes a member of the legislature within six months.
- B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu – Held that disqualified persons cannot be appointed Ministers under Article 164(4).
These cases formed the interpretative framework through which the High Court assessed the legality of the respondent’s appointment.
FAQs
1. Can a non-legislator be appointed as Minister under the Constitution?
Yes, under Article 164(4), but only for six months and with the intent to get elected to the legislature during that time.
2. What happens if the person fails to get elected within six months?
Their appointment ceases automatically, and they must vacate the office of Minister.
3. Can the Governor appoint anyone as Minister without scrutiny?
No, the Governor’s discretion under Article 164(1) is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot override Article 164(4).
