LexASHOK PANDEY versus KM. MAYAWATI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ASHOK PANDEY
·'<I
v.
KM. MAYAWATIANDORS.
JUNE 13, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 164 (!), 164 (4) and 177-
...
Appointment to the post of Chief Minister/Minister-Of the persons, who are
c not members of State Legislature-Legality of-Held: There is nothing in the
Constitution which would make the appointment of the Chief Minister and
Minister, none of whom are the members of the State Legislature, illegal-
The Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950.
The present Writ Petition was filed under Article 32 of the
D Constitution, seeking a writ of Quo Warranto against respondent Nos. 1 and
2 on the ground that they were not qualified to be appointed as Chief Minister
and Minister respectively as they were already legislators of Rajya Sabha
and thus provisions under Article 164 (4) were not applicable on them.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
E
HELD : 1. By virtue of Article 177 of the Constitution any Minister
even if he is not a member of either House of Legislature of the State would
be entitled to be present at the meeHng of either House of Legislature
assembled together at the time of address of the Governor as contemplated by
F
Article 175. Article 164 (4) provides that the Minister who for any period of
six months is not a member of Legislature of the State shall at the expiration
,-
of the period cease to be a Minister. The plain words cannot be cut down in
(
any manner and confined to a case where a Minister is a member of the
Legislature of the State loses for some reason his seat in the State
Legislature. There is nothing in the Constitution which would make the
G appointment of the Chief Minister and Minister, none of whom are the members
of the State Lt!gislature, illegal. Appointment of a per.son as Chief Minister
cannot be challenged on the ground! that he was not a member of the
Legislature of the State at the time of appointment.
[Para 51(1008-F;1009-A, BJ
('
H
1006
I
I,
ASHOKPANDEYv. KM. MAYAWATl(PASAYAT.J.)
1007
Har Sharan Verma v. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh 1197111 SCC 616 A
)
and Dr. Janak Raj Jai v. HD. Deve Gowda, 11997) 10 SCC 462, relied on.
2. The absence of the expression "from amongst members of the
Legislature" in Article 164(1) is indicative of the position that whereas under
that provision a non-legislator can be appointed as a Chief Minister or a
Minister but that appointment would be governed by Article 164(4), which B
places a restriction on such a non-member to continue as a Minister or the
Chief Minister, as the case may be, unless he can get himself elected to the
'1
Legislature within the period of six consecutive months from the date of his
appointment. Article 164(4) is therefore not a source of power or an enabling
provision for appoint!l1ent of a non-legislator as a Minister even for a short c
duration. It is actually in the nature of a disqmllification or restriction for a
non-member, who has been appointed as a Chief Minister or a Minister, as
the case may be, to continue in office without getting him.:elf elected within
a period ofsix consecutive months. (Para 13) (1011-B, C, D)
S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 126, relied D
on.
i
Constituent Assembly Debates dated !st June, (1949) Vol. Vlll page 521,
referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :Writ Petition (Civil) No. 296 of2007. E
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Ashok Pandey Petitioner-In-Person.
Jyotendra Mishra, Adv. Gen. Devendra Arora, Shail Kumar Dwivedi
Addi. Adv. Generals, G.V. Rao for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. This petition is filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) seeking a writ of
quo warranto 11gainst respondent Nos.1 and 2. Essentially, the grievance is G
that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not quaiified to be appointed as Chief
'! Minister and Minister respectively as they were members of the Rajya Sabha
and thus disqualified under Article 164(4) read with Article 164(1) of the
Constitution. The basic stand is that since they were members of the Rajya
Sabha the requirement of their being elected to the State Legislative Assembly
within a period of 6 months does not apply to them as they are already H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 7 S.C.R.
A legislators of the Rajya Sabha.
B
c
D
2. While appreciating the standExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.