| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 06 NOVEMBER, 1996 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| PETITIONER | S.P. ANAND |
| RESPONDENT | H.D. DEVE GOWDA & OTHERS |
| BENCH | CJT, SUJATA V. MANOHAR |
| REFERRED | ARTICLE 32 |
| CITATION | AIR 1997 SC 272 |
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, S.P. Anand of Indore, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of India. He contested Shri H.D. Deve Gowda’s selection as India’s prime minister. Anand argued that Deve Gowda, not being a member of either House of Parliament, was ineligible to be appointed as Prime Minister. He further contended that the President of India, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, had committed a grave Constitutional error by swearing in Deve Gowda as Prime Minister. The petitioner claimed that this action violated Articles 14, 21, and 75 of the Constitution, rendering it void ab initio and sought a writ from the Court to quash the appointment. The Union of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Leader of the Muslim League in Lok Sabha were also named as respondents 2, 4, and 5, respectively.
Issues of the Case:
The main issue was whether a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed as the Prime Minister of India, and whether such an appointment is in violation of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Argument:
1. Ineligibility of H.D. Deve Gowda: The petitioner contended that Shri H.D. Deve Gowda, the appointed Prime Minister, was not a member of either House of Parliament. Therefore, he argued that Deve Gowda was ineligible to hold the position of Prime Minister under the Constitution.
2. Violation of Constitutional Articles: The petitioner claimed that the appointment of Deve Gowda was in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 75 of the Constitution. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 75 pertains to the appointment of Ministers.
3. Seeking Quashing of Appointment: The petitioner requested the quashing of Deve Gowda’s appointment as Prime Minister by an appropriate writ issued by the Court under Article 32.
4. Impleading Other Respondents: The petitioner not only contested Deve Gowda’s appointment but also named the Union of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Leader of the Muslim League in the Lok Sabha as respondents 2, 4, and 5 in that order.
Respondent’s Argument:
1. Precedent Cases: The respondents argued that precedent cases had already addressed the question of whether a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament could be appointed as a Minister. They cited multiple cases where it was established that such appointments were permissible, based on the interpretation of relevant constitutional articles.
2. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions: Responding to the petitioner’s claims of violating Articles 14, 21, and 75, the respondents asserted that the Constitution itself permitted non-members to be appointed as Ministers. They highlighted the importance of the President seeking the confidence of the Lok Sabha when appointing a Prime Minister, which ensured democratic accountability.
3. Collective Responsibility: The respondents emphasized that the principle of collective responsibility ensured that even a Prime Minister who was not a member of Parliament would be accountable to the House, as the entire Council of Ministers was collectively responsible to the House of the People.
4. Dissuading Frivolous Litigation: The respondents expressed concern about frivolous litigation in public interest cases. They argued that such cases should be pursued with careful research and expertise in constitutional law, and that litigants should not rush to court without due diligence.
Judgment of the Case:
The Court, in its judgment, upheld the appointment of a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament as the Prime Minister of India. The Court reasoned that Article 75(5) of the Constitution permitted the appointment of such a person as a Minister for a period of six consecutive months. If that person was not elected to either House of Parliament during that time, they would cease to be a Minister.
The Court also emphasised the Council of Ministers’ joint accountability to the House of the People, ensuring that even a Prime Minister selected by a non-member of Parliament would continue to answer to those elected officials.
The Court noted that the British convention that the Prime Minister should be a member of either House of Commons was not in line with the Indian constitutional scheme. It also criticized the petitioner for filing the petition in a casual and cavalier fashion, emphasizing the importance of proper research and expertise when filing public interest litigation.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s arguments and upheld the appointment of a non-member of Parliament as the Prime Minister for a maximum duration of six months, provided they have the support and confidence of the House of the People. The Court declined to impose costs on the petitioner but warned against filing similar petitions without due diligence in the future.
Key Takeaway:
The case of S.P. Anand vs. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others clarified that the Constitution of India permits the appointment of a Prime Minister who is not a member of either House of Parliament, assuming they get the support of the Lok Sabha’s majority. The judgment also highlighted the importance of responsible and well-informed public interest litigation and discouraged the abuse of the judicial process
REFERENCES
Written by ADITYA SINGH, UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW an intern under Legal Vidhya.
0 Comments