S.R. CHAUDHURI V. STATE OF PUNJAB
(2001) 7 SCC 126
FACTS
Respondent 2 was appointed as a Minister of Punjab on the advice of the then Chief Minister. At the time of his appointment as a Minister, he was not a member of the Legislative Assembly in Punjab, failed to get himself elected as a member of the Legislature within a period of six months and eventually handed out his resignation to the Council of Ministers. The Respondent no. 2 was elected for the second time during the term of the same legislature and and the Appellant filed a petition seeking writ of quo warranto against the Respondent 2. The High Court dismissed the said petition in limine and eventually a special leave petition was filed by the Appellant.
ISSUE
The issue pertaining to the current scenario is whether a non-member, who fails to get elected during the period of six consecutive months, after he is appointed as a Minister or while a minister has ceased to be a legislator, be reappointed as a Minister, without being elected to the Legislature after the expiry of the period of six consecutive months.
RULES
Section 164(1) of the Constitution states that the Governor shall appoint the Chief Minister exercising his own discretion, according to established practice and conventions. All other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. Further Section 164(4) of the Constitution states is an exception to Section 164(2) which states that the members of the Council are collectively responsible. Section 164(4) states that the if a non- member is appointed a Minister, he would cease to be a Minister unless in a short period of six consecutive months from the date of his appointment he gets elected to the Legislature
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- This Hon'ble court including its Constitution Bench, has consistently interpreted Article 163, 164(1) and Article 164(4) such that a person who isn't a member of the legislature maybe appointed as a minister for a period of six months but if he fails to get elected within that period of time, he shall cease to be a minister at the expiry of that time period.
- The court observed that the absence of the expression “from amongst members of the Legislature” in Article 164(1) was indicative that the appointment of non legislator was governed by Article 164(4), it was not an enabling provision for the appointment of the non-legislator, even for a short duration. It was actually in the disqualification or restriction for a non- member, who was appointed as a minister, to continue in office without getting himself elected within a period of six consecutive months.
- The court observed through the positions prevailing in England, Australia and Canada that the essential component of a system of representative government is that the ministers are chosen out of the members of the Legislature and only in rare cases is a non member appointed as a minister, who must get himself elected in the legislature either through direct or indirect elections. The framers of the Constitution did not have the intention that a non legislator should be repeatedly appointed as a minister for a term of six months each time without getting elected as such a practice strikes at the very root of parliamentary democracy.
- The court further observed that the sequence and scheme of the Article 164 clearly suggests that ideally, every Minister must be a member of the Legislature at the time of his appointment, though in exceptional cases, a non-member may be given a ministerial berth or permitted to continue as a Minister for a short period of six consecutive months. A council of ministers appointed during the term of the Legislative Assembly would continue in office so long as they continue to enjoy the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. Reappointment of such a person, who fails to get elected as a member within the period of grace of six consecutive months, would not only disrupt the sequence and scheme of Article 164 but would also defeat and subvert the basic principle of representative and responsible government. It was further stated by this Hon'ble court that the “privilege” of continuing as a minister for six months without being an elected member was only a one-time slot for the individual concerned during the term of the Legislative Assembly concerned. It exhausts itself if the individual is unable to get himself elected within the said period. This privilege is not present upon the Chief Minister and therefore he cannot reappoint the individual as a minister without getting him elected first.
- This Hon'ble court stated that the framers of the Constitution have used the expression “six consecutive months”, implying that the period of six months must run continuously and not even intermittently. It would commence from the time a non-legislator is either appointed as a Minister and comes to an end at the expiry of that period.
- It was further observed by this court that the Constitutional provisions are required to be read and interpreted with an object oriented approach. The Constitution must not be construed in a narrow sense and the terms, even if they are general, must have their true meaning appreciated considering the context in which they are being used and the purpose which they are serving.
- It was therefore concluded by this Hon'ble court that it would be subverting the Constitution to permit a non legislator to be appointed a Minister repeatedly for a term of “six consecutive months”, without him getting himself elected first. The practice would be, derogatory to the Constitutional scheme, improper, undemocratic and invalid. Article 164(4) is at best an exception to the normal rule and norm of only legislators being permitted to be appointed as a minister. This exception is essentially used to meet a very extraordinary situation and must be strictly construed and sparingly used. The clear mandate of this article is that if an individual concerned is unable to be elected to the legislature, he shall cease to be a minister.
RELEVANT THEORY
Purposive Construction discusses the importance of the purport and object of the act. It also states that a statute must be read in its entirety and purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying principles of purposive construction. A purposive construction promoting the object of the enactment but not extending its sweep beyond the frontiers within which it was intended to operate must be adopted keeping in view that a construction which exempts a person from its operation must be preferred to the one which includes him in it, in view of the penal nature of the statue. It is normally based on three components namely, language, purpose and discretion. It is the duty of the courts to accept a construction which promotes the object of the legislation and also prevents its possible abuse even though the mere possibility of abuse of a provision does not affect its Constitutionality or construction. Abuse has to be checked by constant vigilance and monitoring of individual cases and this can be done by screening of the cases by suitable machinery at a high level. Further, Purposive construction can only be resorted to when language of a provision is capable of more than one interpretation. Where literal construction or plain meaning may cause hardship, futility, absurdity or uncertainty, the purposive or contextual construction may be preferred to arrive at a more just, reasonable and sensible result.