2001 (8) TMI 1370 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reappointment of a non-legislator as a Minister without being elected within six consecutive months.
2. Interpretation and scope of Article 164(1) and Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of reappointment of a non-legislator as a Minister without being elected within six consecutive months.

The respondent, who was initially appointed as a Minister without being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, failed to get elected within six months and resigned. He was reappointed during the same legislative term without being elected. The court held that reappointment of a non-legislator as a Minister without being elected within six consecutive months is improper, undemocratic, invalid, and unconstitutional. The "privilege" of continuing as a Minister for "six months" without being an elected member is only a one-time slot during the term of the concerned legislative assembly. Reappointment without getting elected would disrupt the sequence and scheme of Article 164 and subvert the basic principle of representative and responsible Government.

Issue 2: Interpretation and scope of Article 164(1) and Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India.

Article 164(1) allows the Governor to appoint a Chief Minister and other Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister. Article 164(4) provides that a Minister who is not a member of the Legislature must get elected within six consecutive months or cease to be a Minister. The court emphasized that Article 164(4) is not a source of power for appointing a non-legislator as a Minister but a restriction. The provision is meant to handle extraordinary situations and must be strictly construed and sparingly used. The court concluded that reappointing a non-legislator as a Minister without election within six consecutive months is unconstitutional and subversive of parliamentary democracy.

The judgment invalidated the reappointment of the respondent as a Minister and emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and the democratic spirit underlying the Constitution. The appeal was allowed, and the reappointment was set aside, though the court noted that this judgment would not affect any orders made or actions taken by the respondent during his tenure as a Minister. The appeal succeeded with costs.