| Citation | AIR 1997 SC 272 |
| Date of Judgement | 6th Nov, 1996 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Writ Petition case no – 850 of 1996 |
| Appellant | S. P. Anand |
| Respondent | H.D. Deve Gowda and Ors. |
| Bench | A.M. Ahmadi, C. J. and S.V. Manohar |
| Sections Referred | Constitution of India – Article 14, Article 21, Article 74, Article 75. |
| Case Category | Constitution of India related to appointment of Prime Minister. |
| Cases referred | Har Sharan Verma V. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh and Ors AIR 1971 SC 1331 Har Sharan Verma V. State of U.P 1985 2 SC CR 547 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The brief facts of the case are the first respondent, Shri H. D. Deve Gowda, the present Prime Minister of India, not being a member of either House of Parliament under Constitution of India is not eligible to be appointed as the Prime Minister of India and the President of India, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma the third respondent, committed a grave and serious Constitutional error in swearing him as the Prime Minister of India. This action by the third respondent is violative of Article 14, 21, 74 and 75 of the Indian Constitution and therefore void-ab-initio and deserved to be quashed by an appropriate writ petition of the court in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
ISSUE RAISED
Whether a person who is not a member of either House of the Parliament can be appointed as a Prime Minister of India?
ARGUMENTS
CONTENTIONS FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER
The petitioner who argued the case claiming to be concerned about the survival of the democratic process and pristine glory of our constitutional scheme submitted that if a person who is not elected representative of the people of the country and in whom the people has not placed confidence, is allowed to occupy the high office of Prime Minister o whom there is responsibility to govern the Nation and assure peace, it would be of great risk which the country can ill afford to take it. He stated that the decisions which were given in the previous cases like Har Sharan Verma V. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh and Ors AIR 1971 SC 1331 and Har Sharan Verma V. State of U.P 1985 2 SC CR 547 they were old and needed to be reconsidered in the changed circumstances.
The petitioner further argued that even if the Constitution permits a person who is not a member of either House of the Parliament to be appointed as minister for six months, but there is nothing in the Article 75(5) which suggests that he can be appointed the Prime Minister of India. He urged that the status of Prime Minister is different from that of minister, and therefore it is essential that a person who has been appointed as the Prime Minister should be an elected representative.
JUDGEMENT
It was difficult for the court to agree with petitioner’s argument that electing a prime minister who is not a member of the House would endanger national interest or put the country at risk. The English tradition dictates that the Prime Minister must be an elected representative of one Parliament’s Houses, ideally the House of Commons. But this is not our Constitutional System. Therefore, when President has any doubts, he usually requests the person chosen to seek a vote of confidence from the Parliament within a few days after his appointment
Prior to the Supreme Court of India hearing the Deve Gowda Case, the likewise case had been argued in the High Court of Calcutta and Delhi. Although the petition was heard, it was rejected and it was deemed unnecessary to include the Prime Minister since it is covered by the term “Minister”. Articles 74 and 75 deals with the President and the Prime Minister, while Article 163 and 164 deals with the Governor and the Chief Minister.
The court said that it’s difficult to agree with the petitioner’s argument that electing someone who is not the member of either House of the Parliament will endanger the National interest or else will put the Constitution in great danger. As opposed to the English Custom our Constitution allows for non-members to serve as the Chief Minister or Prime minister for six months regardless of which house they belong to.
These factors led the Court to dismiss the petition. An interim order was passed restraining proceedings ongoing in other jurisdictions must be dismissed with the instruction that they be dealt with in light of this ruling.
REFERENCES
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/802583
https://www.manupatrafast.com/
Written by Lakshmi kumari an intern under legal vidhiya
