Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against the private respondents who have been appointed by the State Government as Political Secretaries, Chief Advisor and Media Advisor to the current Chief Minister of Karnataka; the Division Bench of Prasanna B. Varale, CJ*., and Krishna S. Dixit, J., dismissed the petition stating that the respondents have been appointed to assist the Chief Minister and they are not functioning as the Ministers in the literal sense hence these appointments do not attract Art. 164(1A) of the Constitution.
The petitioner knocked the doors of the High Court seeking writ of Quo Warranto against the private respondents who were appointed on 01-06-2023 and 22-05-2023.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the appointment of the private respondents with the status of Cabinet Rank is without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. Relying on Art. 164(1A) of the Constitution which prescribes that the total number of Ministers including the Chief Minister in a State shall not exceed 15% of the total number of Members of the Legislative Assembly; the petitioner contended that this ceiling limit is breached by the appointments in question.
Per contra, the respondents rebutted the argument vis-à-vis Art. 164(1A) of the Constitution stating that none of the private respondents have been appointed as Ministers and therefore, petition is unworthy for consideration.
Perusing the contentions of the parties, the Court declined to indulge in the matter stating that text of Art. 164(1A) of the Constitution is “as clear as Gangetic waters”. The Court stated that if the private respondents were appointed as Ministers, there could have been scope for the invocation of subject provision of the Article. Merely because a Cabinet Status is conferred on a particular appointee, that per se does not make him a Minister within the meaning of Art. 164(1A) of the Constitution.
The Court pointed out that status of Cabinet Rank is conferred on persons appointed to posts/offices other than that of Ministers as well. Since the enactment of the Constitution, in several States, like Assam, Meghalaya, etc. persons are appointed in such capacities even when they are not Members of the Council of Ministers. Such status is conferred for various reasons that fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and therefore, Court cannot undertake their deeper examination in judicial review.
[Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 59, decided on 07-09-2023]
*Order by Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner in person
Respondent- Niloufer Akbar, AGA
Buy Constitution of India HERE
