LexMANOJ NARULA versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 965 MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2005) AUGUST 27, 2014 [R.M. LODHA, CJI, DIPAK MISRA, MADAN 8. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 75 and 164 - Scope and purpose of -Legality of person with criminal background C and/or charged with offences involving moral turpitude being appointed as Ministers in Central and State Governments - Scope for framing of possible guidelines for appointment of Ministers for the UOI as well as for the State - Legal position discussed - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - D Chapter Ill -Criminalisation of politics. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of implied limitation - Discussed. Doctrines/Principles - Principle of Constitutional silence/ E abeyance - Discussed. Doctrines/Principles - Principle of Constitutional implications - Discussed. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of Constitutional morality F - Discussed. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of good governance - Discussed. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of Constitutional trust - Discussed. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 965 G H 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A Per Dipak Misra, J. [for himself, Lodha, CJI. And Bobde, J.) HELD:1. The Prime Minister has been regarded as the repository of constitutional trust. The use of the 8 words "on the advice of the Prime Minister" in Article 75 of the Constitution cannot be all()wed 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 C person is disqualified under the Constitution to contest the election or under the Repr..esentation of the People Act, 1951. 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 D 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 E 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 F 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. [Para 85) [1031-C-G] G 2. 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 H • MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA 967 expected that the Prime Minster should act in the interest A 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 B the constitutional trust. The 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. [Para SSA] [1031-H; 1032-A-C] C 3. While interpreting Article 75(1) of the Constitution, definitely a disqualification cannot be added. However, it can always be legitimately expected, regard being had to ttie role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers and keeping in view the sanctity of oath he takes, the Prime D 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 E Ministers. This is what the Constitution suggests and that is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister. Rest has to be left to the wisdom of the Prime Minister. What
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.