S.P. ANAND, INDORE versus H.D. DEVE GOWDA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 06-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.P. ANAND, INDORE 
v. 
H.D. DEVE GOWDA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 
B 
(A.M. AHMADI CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 74 and 75 (5; 163 and 164(4)-
Appointment of .a non-member of either House of Parliament/State 
Legislature as Minister in Central/State Cabinet including that as Prime 
Minister/Chief Minister-Appointment Vf!lidfor a period of six consecutive 
C months-If during that period the person so appointed is not elected to 
either House of Parliament/State Legislature, appointment to cease. 
Article 75-Appointment of a non-member of either House of 
Parliament as Prime Minister-Appointment valid as long as the appointee 
commands support and confidence of the House-Once appointed, the 
D Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers become collectively answerable 
to the House-British convention that the Prime Minister should be a 
member of either House, preferably the House of Commons, is not in tune 
without Constitutional Scheme or recognised practice. 
Articles 32, 136-Public Interest Litigations-Expousing a public 
E cause and invoking Court 'sjurisdiction seeking waiver of locus standi rule-
Not to be drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion-To be only drafted by 
persons having expert knowledge in the field after proper research-Casual 
approach to consider decisions of Supreme Court not to be countenanced. 
F 
Public Interest Litigations-Withdrawal thereof only with permission 
of the Court-Decision to be guided by considerations of public interest so 
as not to result in the abuse of the process of law-On facts, in the present 
case, withdrawal was allowed as the same question was raised, for 
determination in different Courts. 
G 
The Petitioner, by means of a public interest litigation under 
Article 32 of the Constitution has challenged the appointment of Shri 
H.D. Deve Gowda, the then Prime Minister of India on the ground 
that he was not a member of either House of Parliament and therefore 
was not eligible to be so appointed by the President of India, The 
Petitioner inter alia prayed for an appropriate writ of this Court in 
H exercise of its powers for quashing of the said appointment alleging 
486 
S.P. ANAND v. H. D. DEVE GOWDA 
487 
that it was violative-of Articles 14, 21 and 75 of the Constitution. The A 
said appointment of the then Prime Minister was also challenged in 
writ petitions more or less on the same grounds in the High Courts of 
Delhi and Calcutta which were duly dismissed by the High Courts. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. A comparative study of Art. 75(5) and Art. 164(4) 
clearly shows that a person who is not a member of either House of 
Parliament or of either House of State Legislature can be appointed 
a Minister in Central Cabinet (which would include a Prime Minister) 
or a Minister in the State Cabinet (which would include a Chief 
B 
Minister) as the case may be. 1492-F] 
C 
The provisions in Articles 74 and 75 deal with the appointment 
of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at its head to aid 
and advice the President. The provisions contained in Articles 164 
and 165 which are also similar deal with the appointment of the 
Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at its head to aid and D 
advise the Governor in exercise of its functions. It is evident that the 
Constitution-makers desired to permit such appointment for a period 
of 6 consecutive months_ and if during the said period he was not 
elected to either House, he would cease to be a Minister. 1491 CDI 
No material change has been brought about in the legal position E 
by reason of amendment of Article 173 (a) of the Constitution (the 
corresponding provision in regard to Parliament is Art. 84 (a) ). 
Har Sharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh CM, UP, 11971] 1 
SCC 616 Har Sharan Verma v. State of UP., 1198512 SCC 48 and Har 
Sharan Verma v. UO.l, [19871 Supp. SCC 310, relied on. 
F 
1.2. It cannot be said that if a person who is not a member of 
the House is chosen as Prime Minister, national interest would be 
jeopardised or that it would run a great risk. Even if a person is not 
a member of the House, if he has the support and confidence of the G 
House, he can be chosen to head the Council of Ministers without 
violating the norms of democracy and the requirement of being 
accountable to the House would ensure the smooth functioning of the 
democratic process. 1498 D-FJ 
As envisaged by Article 75(1) the I.' resident has to act in ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.