9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of a non-member of Parliament to be appointed as Prime Minister. 2. Interpretation of Articles 74, 75, 163, and 164 of the Constitution. 3. Validity of previous judicial decisions on similar issues. 4. Impact of constitutional conventions and democratic principles. 5. Procedural aspects of public interest litigation (PIL). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of a non-member of Parliament to be appointed as Prime Minister: The petitioner contended that the appointment of Shri H.D. Deve Gowda as Prime Minister was unconstitutional as he was not a member of either House of Parliament at the time of his appointment. The petitioner argued that this violated Articles 14, 21, and 75 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined previous decisions and constitutional provisions, concluding that a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed as Prime Minister for a period of six months, provided they secure a seat in either House within that timeframe. 2. Interpretation of Articles 74, 75, 163, and 164 of the Constitution: The Court compared Articles 74 and 75 with Articles 163 and 164, noting their similarities and differences. Article 75(5) allows a non-member to be appointed as a Minister, including the Prime Minister, for six months. The Court referenced Constituent Assembly debates where an amendment to restrict ministerial appointments to elected members was rejected. This historical context supported the interpretation that the Constitution permits such appointments. 3. Validity of previous judicial decisions on similar issues: The Court reviewed past judgments, including Har Sharan Verma v. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh, Har Sharan Verma v. State of U.P., and Har Sharan Verma v. Union of India, which upheld the appointment of non-members as Ministers under Articles 75(5) and 164(4). The Court reaffirmed these decisions, stating that they did not violate democratic principles or the constitutional mechanism. 4. Impact of constitutional conventions and democratic principles: The petitioner cited Halsbury's Laws of England, arguing that the Prime Minister should be a member of Parliament. The Court rejected this, stating that the British convention does not align with the Indian constitutional scheme. The Indian Constitution explicitly allows for the appointment of non-members as Ministers for six months, ensuring they must gain the confidence of the House to continue. 5. Procedural aspects of public interest litigation (PIL): The Court criticized the petitioner for filing a poorly drafted petition lacking coherence and relevance. It emphasized the need for restraint and thorough research in PIL cases, warning against the misuse of the judicial process. The Court also highlighted the importance of public interest considerations in allowing or denying withdrawal of PILs. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that the Constitution permits the appointment of a non-member as Prime Minister for a limited period, subject to securing a parliamentary seat within six months. The Court emphasized the need for careful and well-researched PILs to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
|
