In a landmark verdict the Supreme Court on Aug 27 advised the Prime Minister or Chief Minister of a State not to induct charge sheeted persons facing trial for offences involving moral turpitude as Ministers though there was no limitation or restriction in the Constitution which debars any Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly being included in the Cabinet.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha said the Prime Minister as the trustee of the Constitution was expected to act in accordance with constitutional propriety and not appoint unwarranted persons as Ministers.
Justice Dipak Misra writing the judgment said “Article 75 of the Constitution does not contain any limitation as to who can or cannot be included in the Council of Ministers” and hence no new disqualification could be added to prevent charge sheeted persons from being appointed as Ministers.
The Bench said criminalisation of politics destroyed people’s faith in democracy and persons, howsoever, high he/she might be could not be exempted from equal treatment. It said constitutional morality, good governance and constitutional trust expected good sense from the Prime Minister and it should be left to his wisdom not to recommend any person with criminal charges from being appointed as a Minister.
The bench said that many things could not be said in the Constitution, but the Constitution could not however be expected to operate in a vacuum. The Prime Minister should act in the interest of national polity and avoid unwarranted persons facing criminal charges to restore people’s faith in democracy.
The Bench asked “whether a person who has come in conflict with law would be in a position to conscientiously discharge his functions as Minister when his integrity is questioned and whether a person with doubtful integrity can be given the responsibility.” It pointed out that a person against whom charges were framed or was facing trial was not appointed in any civil service. While so whether a person who was facing the same disqualification could be appointed as a Minister by the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister of a State, the Bench said.
The Bench was disposing of a public interest litigation petition filed in 2005 by Manoj Narula seeking removal of the then four charge-sheeted Ministers — Lalu Prasad, Mohammed Taslimuddin, M.A.A. Fatmi and Jai Prakash Yadav from the Cabinet.
The Centre took the stand that Article 75 did not say that any person who had criminal proceedings pending against him had to be read as disqualification of being appointed as a minister. It would be incorrect to read into the provisions of Article 75 such a disqualification when none existed.
The constitution bench while expressing concern over criminalisation of politics left it to the wisdom of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister of a State to take a call on this aspect and not appoint such charge sheeted persons as a Minister.
But Tamil Nadu has a charge-sheeted Chief Minister at the helm and hence whose wisdom will prevail here?
On the other hand the Supreme Court should have advised the President and Governors not to swear in chargesheeted as Prime Minister and Chief Ministers.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha said the Prime Minister as the trustee of the Constitution was expected to act in accordance with constitutional propriety and not appoint unwarranted persons as Ministers.
Justice Dipak Misra writing the judgment said “Article 75 of the Constitution does not contain any limitation as to who can or cannot be included in the Council of Ministers” and hence no new disqualification could be added to prevent charge sheeted persons from being appointed as Ministers.
The Bench said criminalisation of politics destroyed people’s faith in democracy and persons, howsoever, high he/she might be could not be exempted from equal treatment. It said constitutional morality, good governance and constitutional trust expected good sense from the Prime Minister and it should be left to his wisdom not to recommend any person with criminal charges from being appointed as a Minister.
The bench said that many things could not be said in the Constitution, but the Constitution could not however be expected to operate in a vacuum. The Prime Minister should act in the interest of national polity and avoid unwarranted persons facing criminal charges to restore people’s faith in democracy.
The Bench asked “whether a person who has come in conflict with law would be in a position to conscientiously discharge his functions as Minister when his integrity is questioned and whether a person with doubtful integrity can be given the responsibility.” It pointed out that a person against whom charges were framed or was facing trial was not appointed in any civil service. While so whether a person who was facing the same disqualification could be appointed as a Minister by the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister of a State, the Bench said.
The Bench was disposing of a public interest litigation petition filed in 2005 by Manoj Narula seeking removal of the then four charge-sheeted Ministers — Lalu Prasad, Mohammed Taslimuddin, M.A.A. Fatmi and Jai Prakash Yadav from the Cabinet.
The Centre took the stand that Article 75 did not say that any person who had criminal proceedings pending against him had to be read as disqualification of being appointed as a minister. It would be incorrect to read into the provisions of Article 75 such a disqualification when none existed.
The constitution bench while expressing concern over criminalisation of politics left it to the wisdom of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister of a State to take a call on this aspect and not appoint such charge sheeted persons as a Minister.
But Tamil Nadu has a charge-sheeted Chief Minister at the helm and hence whose wisdom will prevail here?
On the other hand the Supreme Court should have advised the President and Governors not to swear in chargesheeted as Prime Minister and Chief Ministers.
No comments:
Post a Comment