2015 (4) TMI 154 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to appointment of some of the original respondents as Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of India despite their involvement in serious and heinous crimes - Purity of election - Criminalisation of politics - Doctrine of implied limitation - concept of constitutional trust in the Prime Minister - Principle of constitutional silence - Held that - Prime Minister has been regarded as the repository of constitutional trust. The use of the words on the advice of the Prime Minister cannot be allowed to operate in a vacuum to lose their significance. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the Prime Minister s advice is binding on the President for the appointment of a person as a Minister to the Council of Ministers unless the said person is disqualified under the Constitution to contest the election or under the 1951 Act, as has been held in B.R. Kapur s case. That is in the realm of disqualification. But, a pregnant one, the trust reposed in a high constitutional functionary like the Prime Minister under the Constitution does not end there. That the Prime Minister would be giving apposite advice to the President is a legitimate constitutional expectation, for it is a paramount constitutional concern. In a controlled Constitution like ours, the Prime Minister is expected to act with constitutional responsibility as a consequence of which the cherished values of democracy and established norms of good governance get condignly fructified. The framers of the Constitution left many a thing unwritten by reposing immense trust in the Prime Minister. The scheme of the Constitution suggests that there has to be an emergence of constitutional governance which would gradually grow to give rise to constitutional renaissance. It is worthy to note that the Council of Ministers has the collective responsibility to sustain the integrity and purity of the constitutional structure. That is why the Prime Minister enjoys a great magnitude of constitutional power. Therefore, the responsibility is more, regard being had to the instillation of trust, a constitutional one. It is also expected that the Prime Minster should act in the interest of the national polity of the nation-state. He has to bear in mind that unwarranted elements or persons who are facing charge in certain category of offences may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality or principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust. We have already held that prohibition cannot be brought in within the province of advice but indubitably, the concepts, especially the constitutional trust, can be allowed to be perceived in the act of such advice. Thus, while interpreting Article 75(1), definitely a disqualification cannot be added. However, it can always be legitimately expected, regard being had to the role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers and keeping in view the sanctity of oath he takes, the Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of Ministers. This is what the Constitution suggests and that is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister. It is not for the court to issue any direction to the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, as to the manner in which they should exercise their power while selecting the colleagues in the Council of Ministers. That is the constitutional prerogative of those functionaries who are called upon to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But it is the prophetic duty of this Court to remind the key duty holders about their role in working the Constitution. Hence, I am of the firm view, that the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State, who themselves have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties faithfully and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petition disposed of.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of appointing individuals with criminal backgrounds as ministers.
2. Interpretation of Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution.
3. Concept of democracy and criminalization of politics.
4. Provisions relating to qualifications and disqualifications of MPs and MLAs.
5. Constitutional morality, good governance, and constitutional trust.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Appointing Individuals with Criminal Backgrounds as Ministers:
The petition challenged the appointment of ministers with criminal backgrounds, arguing it undermines democracy and the rule of law. The Court emphasized the need for ministers to have high moral and ethical values and highlighted the significance of free and fair elections. It was argued that the Prime Minister should not recommend individuals with criminal charges for ministerial positions, as it goes against constitutional morality and the expectations of the citizens.

2. Interpretation of Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution:
The Court examined Articles 75 and 164, which deal with the appointment of ministers by the President and Governor on the advice of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, respectively. It was argued that these articles should be interpreted to include an implied limitation that individuals with criminal charges should not be appointed as ministers. However, the Court concluded that adding such a disqualification through judicial interpretation would be inappropriate, as it would amount to judicial legislation.

3. Concept of Democracy and Criminalization of Politics:
The judgment discussed the detrimental impact of criminalization of politics on democracy. It referred to various reports and recommendations on electoral reforms, emphasizing the need to prevent individuals with criminal backgrounds from holding public office. The Court noted that criminalization of politics erodes the fundamental values of democracy and undermines the trust of the citizens in their representatives.

4. Provisions Relating to Qualifications and Disqualifications of MPs and MLAs:
The Court examined the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the qualifications and disqualifications of Members of Parliament and State Legislatures. Article 84 specifies the qualifications for membership, while Article 102 enumerates the disqualifications. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, further details the disqualifications based on criminal convictions. The Court noted that while these provisions disqualify individuals upon conviction, they do not address the stage of framing charges.

5. Constitutional Morality, Good Governance, and Constitutional Trust:
The judgment highlighted the concepts of constitutional morality, good governance, and constitutional trust. It emphasized that the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, being high constitutional functionaries, are expected to act in accordance with these principles. The Court stated that while it cannot impose a disqualification through judicial interpretation, it is the constitutional responsibility of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister to avoid appointing individuals with criminal charges as ministers.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that while it cannot judicially impose a disqualification on individuals with criminal charges from being appointed as ministers, it is expected that the Prime Minister and Chief Minister will act in accordance with constitutional morality and avoid such appointments. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and purity of the constitutional structure and the trust reposed in high constitutional functionaries.

← Previous Next →