HAR SHARAN VERMA versus TRIBHUVAN NARAIN SINGH, CHIEF MINISTER U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 16-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

HAR SHARAN VERMA 
v. 
TRIBHUV AN NARAJN SINGH, CHIEF MINISTER 
U.P. & ANR. 
March 16, 1971. 
1 
A 
(S. M. SIKRI, C. J., J. M. SHELAT, C. A. 
VAIDIALINGAM, 
B 
A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.j 
Constitlltion of India, Art. 164(4)-Appointment as C~irf Minister of a 
person who is not a member of State Legislature-Yalidity'of app9in11ne 111. 
The first respondent was appointed as Chief Minister of U.P. on Octo-
ber 18, 1970. His appointment was phallenged on the ground that he was 
not a member of either house of leaiS!ature at the time of appointment. In 
C 
appeal to this Court against the High Court's judgment dismissing the 
petition under Art. 226, 
HELD : Ci) Clause (4) of Art. 164 must be interpreted in the context 
of Arts. 163 and 164 of the Constitution. Article 163(1) provides that 
"there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the h•ad 
to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except in so 
far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions 
D 
or any of them in his discretion." Under cl.(!) of Art. 164 the Chief 
Minister has to be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister. 
They all hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Clause (!)·does 
not provide any qualification for the person to be sel.:cted by the Governor 
as Chief Minister or minister. 
But cl. (2) make• it essential that the 
council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the. 
~islativ~ 
Assembly of the State. This is the only condition that the Constitution 
E 
prescribes in this behalf. There Is thus no reason 
why ·_tile plain 
words of cl.(4) of Art. 164 should be cut· down in any . rnannet and 
confined to a case where a Minister loses· for Some reason his ·seat iii the 
Legislature of the State. That this is the correct meaning to be given to 
Art. 164(4) is supporte<I by the P<oceedings of the Constituent Assembly 
and the position as it ,Qbtains In England, Australia and South Africa. [2G· 
H, 3EJ .. 
ftl) If the Governor of a State appoints a Chief Mfuister and Council' 
P 
of Minister. none of whom are mc;mbers of the .State Leaislature, and the' 
Legislative Assembly of the State tQ wlioin the Council of Miriistera would 
be responsible endorses this unlikely _Council of . Minillters, there is noth' 
ing in the-Coristitution: which would make this appoilitmetlt illesal. !3A-
B]. 
(iii) There can be no difficulty in Minilters who are not members "of 
the Legislature beina present at the time of the' Governor's address because 
Gi 
by virtue of Art. 177 they would be entiUed · to be present at the meeting 
of the Legislature addressed. by the Go:vemor. 
[JC-DJ. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JTJRJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2205 ·Of 
1970. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 4, 1970 
of the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow Bench in writ petition 
H 
No. 1402 of 1970. 
. 
The appellant appeared in person. 
1-1 S.C. lndia/71 
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
SUPREME COIJllT ltEl'OllTS 
[1971] stm. s.c.11. 
L. M. Singhvi, R. Bana and-0. P. Rana, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Slkri, C. J. In this appeal by certificate granted by the High 
Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution a short question 86 to 
the interpretation of cl. 4 of Article 164 of the Constitution arises. 
This question has arisen in connection with the appointment on 
October, 18, 1970, of Shri Tribbuvan Narain Singh as Chief Mini-
ster of Uttar Pradesh. He was not a member of either House of 
Legislature of the Srate of Uttar Pradesh at the time of bis appoint-
ment. 
The appellant, who is a rate-Payer of the Lucknow Consti-
tuency to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative As$embly, filed a petitioi) 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court cballenging 
the appointment of the respondent as Chief Minister. The High 
Court dismissed the petition but granted a certificaite under Art. 
132 of the Constitution, and the appeal is now before us. 
Article 164(4) reads as follows : 
"164(4) A Minister who for any period of six conse-
cutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the 
State sball at the expiration of that periodi cease to be a 
Minister." 
The appellant contends that this clause only applies when a Miw-
$ter, who is a Member of the Legislature of the State, loses his 
seat and the idea behind cl. (4) of Art. 164 is to give him a period 
of six months to get himself re-elected. The learned Counsel for 
the respondent, Mr. Singhvi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.