S. P. Anand v. H. D Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272

• Facts of the case 

A petition was submitted under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that Shri H.D. Deva Gowda, who was appointed as the Prime Minister of India, was not a member of either house of Parliament.                                                                                       According to the Constitution, this appointment was deemed ineligible, and it was considered a serious mistake made by the President of India. This appointment was in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 75 of the A Constitution. Therefore, it is asserted that the appointment is void from the outset and should be nullified through a court-issued writ under the authority granted by Article 32 of the Constitution

• Issue

Is it permissible for an individual who is not a member of either house of the legislature to take the oath as the Prime Minister of India?

• Argument

Petitioner 

• The petitioner argues that designating a non-legislator as a minister was against the Constitution of India and contradicted its fundamental principles.

• The petitioner asserted that H.D. Deve Gowda’s appointment was invalid from the beginning, and they sought a court-issued writ to nullify the decision.

• Respondent

• The respondent made mention of Article 74 and Article 75 of the Constitution, which pertain to the roles of the Governor and the Chief Minister.

• Their argument was based on the assertion that Article 75(5) of the Constitution defines a minister as the Prime Minister, and the Constitution does not differentiate between the Prime Minister and other ministers.

• Judgement

• Challenging the petitioner’s argument that appointing a non-member of the House as Prime Minister could endanger national interests or pose a significant constitutional threat, there is a notable distinction. Unlike the British tradition, our Constitution allows non-members to hold the position of Chief Minister or Prime Minister for a six-month term, regardless of their parliamentary affiliation. This deviates from British practice. In situations where the President has reservations, it is customary for them to recommend that the nominated individual seek a vote of confidence from the lower house of Parliament within a few days of their appointment.
• The court’s decision to reject the petition was influenced by these factors. An interim order was issued, directing the suspension and dismissal of ongoing proceedings in other jurisdictions, to be handled in accordance with this ruling.

• Reference

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/802583/
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7859-a-case-comment-on-s-p-anand-v-s-h-d-deve-gowda-.html

This Article is written by Aryan Soni, Innovative Institute of Law , CCS University, an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin