TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uashed by an appropriate writ of this Court which may be issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also impleaded the Union of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Leader of the Muslim League in Lok Sabha (without naming the individual) as respondents 2, 4 and 5 respectively. 2. A Constitution Bench of this Court had occasion to consider whether a person who is not a member of either House of the State Legislature could be appointed a Minister of State and this question was answered in the affirmative on a true interpretation of Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution which, in material particulars, correspond to Articles 74 and 75 bearing on the question of appointment of the Prime Minister. In that case, Shri T.N. Singh was appointed the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh even though he was not a member of either House of the State Legislature on the date of his appointment. His appointment was challenged in the High Court by way of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition but granted a certificate under Article 132 of the Constitution. That is how the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of that period cease to be a Minister. In other words the Court held that a person who was not a member of either House of the State Ligature could also be appointed by the Governor as the Minister (which includes the Chief Minister) for a period not exceeding six consecutive months. The Court, therefore, did not see any material change brought about in the legal position by reason of the amendment of Article 173(a) of the Constitution from that as explained in the earlier decision in Shri T.N. Singh's case (supra). This decision is reported as Har Sharan Verma v. State of U.P. [1985] 2 SCR 547. 5. Not content with these two decisions rendered by this Court, the very same petitioner once again questioned the appointment of Shri Sita Ram Kesri as a Minister of State of the Central Cabinet since he was not a member of either House of Parliament at the date of the appointment. Spurning the challenge, this Court held that to appoint a non-member of the Parliament as a Minister did not militate against the constitutional mechanism nor did it militate against the democratic principles embodied in the Constitution. The Court, therefore, upheld the appointment under Article 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in Limine. 8. From the aforesaid three decisions of this Court and the High Courts it becomes clear that a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament or of either House of a State Legislature can be appointed a Minister in the Central Cabinet (which would include a Prime Minister) or a Minister in the State Cabinet (which would include a Chief Minister), as the case may be. But the petitioner herein remains not satisfied. 9. The petitioner who argued the case in person with great passion, zeal and emotion, claiming to be concerned about the survival of the democratic process and the pristine glory of our constitutional scheme, submitted that if a person who is not the elected representative of the people of the country and in whom the people have not placed confidence, is allowed to occupy the high office of the Prime Minister on whom would rest the responsibility of governing the Nation during peace and war (God forbid), it would be taking a great risk which the country can ill afford to take and, therefore, we should so construe the relevant provisions of the Constitution as would relieve the country of such a risk. When his attention was drawn to the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Articles 163 and 164, the first point of difference is that while the former deal with the President and the Prime Minister, the latter deal with the Governor and the Chief Minister, Article 74(1) and Article 163(1) are substantially the same except that the sentence beginning with 'except' and ending with 'discretion', special to the Governor's function, is not to be found in Article 74(1). The proviso to Article 74(1) which grants a special privilege to the President is not to be found in Article 163(1) whereas Clause (2) of Article 163 is not to be found in Article 74, Clause (2) to Article 163 is a corollary to the exception clause in Article 163(1) and has no relevance to the issue on hand. Article 74(2) and Article 163(3) are verbatim the same. 13. Article 75(1) and (2) are identical to Article 164(1) except that in the case of the latter, the two clauses have been combined into one. The proviso to Article 164(1) which is special to States, is not to be found in Article 75. The rest of the Clauses of the two Articles are identical except for consequential changes. 14. On a plain reading of Article 75(5) it is obvious that the Constitution makers desi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qualification in my judgment is quite unnecessary. At the end of the discussion, the Constituent Assembly rejected the proposed amendment. Furthermore, as pointed out in the decision of this Court AIR1987SC1969 : AIR1987SC1969, such an appointment does not militate against the democratic principles embodied in our Constitution. With respect, we agree. 15. The petitioner then invited our attention to Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition) page 347 wherein at para 745 it is stated : By conventional usage the Prime Minister is invariably a member of either House of Commons or House of Lords. footnote (i) proceeds to add that the person selected is preferably to be a member of the House of Commons. The petitioner further urged that even if the Constitution is construed 4o permit a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament to be appointed a Minister for six months, there is nothing in Article 75(5) to suggest that he can be appointed the Prime Minister of the country. He urged that the status of the Prime Minister is distinct from that of a Minister and, therefore, it is essential that a person who occupies the high position of a Prime Minister should be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or accept the majority decision. If he does not, the Prime Minister would drop him from his cabinet and thus ensure collective responsibility. Therefore, even though a Prime Minister is not a member of either House of Parliament, once he is appointed he becomes answerable to the House and so also his Ministers and the principle of collective responsibility governs the democratic process. Even if a person is not a member of the House, if he has the support and confidence of the House, he can be chosen to head the Council of Ministers without violating the norms of democracy and the requirement of being accountable to the House would ensure the smooth functioning of the democratic process. We, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to the petitioner's contention that if a person who is not a member of the House is chose as Prime Minister, national interest would be jeopardised or that we would be running a great risk. The English convention that the Prime Minister should be a member of either House, preferably House of Commons, is not our constitutional scheme since our Constitution clearly permits a non-member to be appointed a Chief Minister or a Prime Minister for a short d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithstanding the decisions rendered in the said two cases, to which we have already referred, we were informed by the petitioner himself that he had raised the issue in the Madhya Pradesh High Court and another such petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court. To avoid such snowballing leading to multiplicity of cases we thought it in public interest to examine the issue with a view of avoiding conflict of opinions. That is the reason why we refused to permit withdrawal of the petition and decided to settle the issue of law one way or the other, which we do by this decision. 18. Before we part, we cannot help mentioning that on issues of constitutional laws, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which if we may say so, are often drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion giving an extempore appearance not having had even a second look. This is the impression that one gets on reading the present petition. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
