Holding

The appointment of a Chief Minister or Minister who is not a member of the State Legislature is constitutionally valid and cannot be challenged on that ground.

Summary

The petition under Article 32 sought a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Minister and a Minister, alleging that their appointment was invalid because they were members of the Rajya Sabha and not of the State Legislature, thus supposedly falling outside Article 164(4). The Supreme Court examined Articles 163, 164(1), 164(4), 175, 177 of the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly debates, and the Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950. It held that the Constitution does not prohibit the appointment of a Chief Minister or Minister who is not a member of the State Legislature; such appointment is permissible under Article 164(1) and is subject only to the six‑month limitation of Article 164(4). The Court rejected the contention that being a Rajya Sabha member disqualified the appointees and dismissed the petition as without merit. Consequently, the appointment of non‑legislators as Chief Minister or Minister cannot be challenged on the ground of non‑membership of the State Legislature.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of a Chief Minister or Minister who is not a member of the State Legislature is unconstitutional.
Whether Article 164(4) disqualifies a Rajya Sabha member from being appointed as Chief Minister or Minister.
Whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge such appointments.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 163, s. Article 164(1), s. Article 164(4), s. Article 175, s. Article 177, s. Article 75(5)

Subjects

Chief Minister appointmentMinister appointmentNon‑legislator ministerArticle 164Quo warrantoConstitutional lawState LegislatureSimultaneous membership

Judgment

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
not members of State Legislature-Legality of-Held: There is nothing in the
c 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
Article 175. Article 164 (4) provides that the Minister who for any period of
F 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
appointment of the Chief Minister and Minister, none of whom are the members
G
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
duration. It is actually in the nature of a disqmllification or restriction for a
c
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
that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not quaiified to be appointed as Chief
G
'!
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
(
l

1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A legislators of the Rajya Sabha.

2. While appreciating the stand we shall take note of the provisions on
which emphasis is laid by the petitioner who appears in person.

3. Article 164 (I) and ( 4) read as follows:
B
"{I) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and
the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice
of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the
pleasure of the Governor.

c xx xx xx

(4) A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not
a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that
period cease to be a Minister."

4. It is also necessary to take note of Article 163 which reads as follows:
D
"Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor-( I) There shall be
a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head 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
E or any of them in his discretion.

(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or not a matter as
respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required
to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion
shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall
not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not
F
have acted in his discretion.

(3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by
Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court."

5. By virtue of Article 177 of the Constitution any Minister even if he
G is not a member of either House of Legislature of the State would be entitled
to be present at the meeting of either House of Legislature assembled together
at the time of address of the Governor as contemplated by 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
H to be a Minister. The plain words cannot be cut down in any manner and
ASHOKPANDEYv. KM. MAYAWATI [PASAYAT.J.] 1009

confined to a case where a Minister is a member of the Legislature of the State. A
loses for some reason his seat in the State Legislature. 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. (See
Har Sharan Verma v. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh [1971] I SCC 616). In the
said case it was held that appointment of a person as Chief Minister cannot · B
be challenged on the ground that he was not a member of the Legislature of
the State at the time of appointment

6. An amendment was proposed to the Constituent Assembly that the
following should be incorporated:

"A minister shall at the time of his being chosen as such be a member C
of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State, as the
case may be, but the amendment was not accepted. (See Constituent
Assembly Debates dated Ist June, 1949 Vol. (VIII) page 521)".

7. A brief reference to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly D
would throw enough light on the question. A member of the Constituent
Assembly proposed an amendment to the following effect:

"No person should be appointed a Minister unless at the time of his
appointment, he is elected member of the House."

8. The petitioner has submitted that in a democratic set up a person who B
is not a member of the Legislature will not be appointed as the Minister.

9. Article 144(3) of the Draft Constitution which corresponds to Article
164(4) of the Constitution reads:

"144(3) A Minister who, for any period of six consecutive months, is F·
not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of
that period cease to be a Minister."

I0. During the debate on this draft Article, Mr. Mohd. Tahir, MP, proposed
the following amendment:
G
That for clause (3) of Article 144, the following be substituted:

"(3) A Minister shall, at the time of his being chosen as such be a
member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the
State, as the case may be."
H
-)

1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20071 7 S.C.R.

A 11. Speaking in support of the proposed amendment. Mr. Tahir said in
· the Constituent Assembly:

"This provision appears that it does not fit with the spirit of democracy.
This is a provision which was also provided in the Government of
India Act of 1935 and of course those days were the days of imperialism
B and fortunately those days have gone. This was then provided because
if a Governor finds his choice in someone to appoint as Minister and
fortunately or unfortunately if that man is not elected by the people
of the country, then that man used to be appointed as Minister
through the back door as has been provided in the Constitution and

c in the 1935 Act. But now the people of the States will elect members
of the Legislative Assembly and certainly we should think they will
send the best men of the States to be their representatives in the
Council or Legislative Assembly. Therefore, I do not find any reason
why a man who till then was not elected by the people of the States
and which means that, that man was not liked by the people of the
D States to be their representative in the Legislative Assembly or the
Council, then Sir, why that man is to be appointed as the Minister."

Dr. Ambedkar opposing the amendment replied:

"Now with regard to the first point, namely, that no person shall be
E entitled to be appointed a Minister unless he is at the time of his
appointment an elected member of the House, I think it forgets to take
into consideration certain important matters which cannot be
overlooked. First is this and it is perfectly possible to imagine that a
person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a Minister has
been defeated in a constituency for some reason and which, although
F it may be perfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and
he might have incurred the displeasure of that particular constituency.
It is not a reason why a member so competent as that should not be
permitted to be appointed a member of the Cabinet on the assumption
that he shall be able to get himself elected from the same constituency
or from another constituency. After all the privileges that he is
G
permitted is a privilege that extends only to six months. It does not
confer a right on that individual to sit in the House being elected at
all. My second submission is this that the fact that a nominated
Minister is a member of the Cabinet does not either violate the principle
of collective responsibility nor does it violate the principle of confidence
H because he is a member of the cabinet if he is prepared to accept the
ASHOKPANDEYv.KM.MAYAWATI[PASAYAT.J.) 1011

policy of the Cabinet stands part of the Cabinet and resigns with the A
Cabinet. when he ceases to have the confidence of the House, his
membership of the Cabinet does not in any way cause any
inconvenience or breach of the fundamental principles on which
parliamentary government is based."

12. After the debate the proposed amendment was negatived and Article B
144(3) was adopted.

13. 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 C
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
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 appointment of a non-legislator as a Minister even for a short D
duration. It is actually in the nature of a disqualification 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 himself elected within
a period of six consecutive months. [See SR. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab
and Ors., [2001] 7 SCC 126]
E
14. In Dr. Janak Raj Jai v. H.D. Deve Gowda, [1997] 10 SCC 462 it was
held that a member of the Legislative Assembly could be appointed as Prime
Minister. The position in law was highlighted in paragraphs 4 and 5 noted as
follows:

"4. The petitioner, however, applied before the High Court of Delhi for F
a review of its impugned judgment on the ground that he had
subsequently discovered that after being appointed as the Prime
Minister of India, Shri Deve Gowda had retained his membership of
the Kamataka Legislative Assembly. He resigned from his membership
of the Kamataka Legislative Assembly on becoming a Member of the G
Rajya Sabha. The High Court of Delhi rightly rejected the review
petition since in a review petition, such new grounds could not be
urged. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of this ground
before us.

5. In order not to leave any grievance, we briefly deal with this H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A additional submission also. Under Article 75(5). a person who is not
a Member of either House of Parliament can be appointed a Minister
for a period of six consecutive months. If during this period he is not
elected to either House of Pariiament he will cease to be a Minister.
We have not been shown any Article of the Constitution under which
a person who is elected to a State Legislature is prohibited from being
B appointed as a Minister under Article 75(5). In fact, Article 75(5) is
widely worded. It covers every person who is not a Member of either
House of Parliament. Such a person can be appointed as a Minister
and can remain as a Minister only for a period of six consecutive
months unless he is elected to either House of Parliament within that
C period. If he is not so elected, he shall cease to be a Minister on the
expiry of six consecutive months. The same provision is applicable to
the Prime Minister for reasons which we have set out in our judgment
in the case of S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, [1996] 6 SCC 734.
There is no disqualification which can be spelled out under Article
75(5) in respect of a member of a State Legislative Assembly who is
D appointed under Article 75(5)."

15. It would be necessary to take note of The Prohibition of Simultaneous
Membership Rules, 1950 (in short the Rules). The said rules were promulgated
in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article l 0 l and Clause (2)
E of Article 190 of the Constitution which read as follows:

"I. These Rules may be called the Prohibition of Simultaneous
Membership Rules, 1950.

2. The period at the expiration of which the seat in Parliament of a
person who is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House
F of Legislature of a State specified in the First Schedule to the
Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution")
shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in
the Legislature of such State, shall be fourteen days from the date of
publication in the Gazette of India or in the Official Gazette of the
G State, whichever is later, of the declaration that he has been so
chosen.

* *
3. The period at the expiration of which the seat of a person who is
chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or more States specified
H
ASHOKPANDEYv. KM.MAYAWATl(PASAYAT.J.I 1013

in the First Schedule to the Constitution in the Legislatures of all such A
States shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his
seat in the Legislature of all but one of the States, shall be ten days
from the later or, as the case may be, the latest of the dates of
publication in the Official Gazettes of such States of the declarations
that he has been so chosen."
B
16. In view of what has been stated by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that this petition is sans merit and
·'J deserves to be dismissed which we direct.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
c