JOIN USThe Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a law passed by the Assam Assembly to circumvent a constitutional provision limiting the size of ministries should put an end to the widespread practice resorted to by chief ministers to dispense favours
and to keep their flock together. The state law had provided for the appointment of parliamentary secreta-ries who would enjoy salaries and other benefits like ministers but had no important responsibilities. The device was invented by chief ministers whose hands were tied by the 91st amendment to the Constitution, effected in 2004, which stipulated that the size of the council of ministers should not exceed 15% of the strength of the legislature. But the courts have not favoured attempts to defeat the purpose of the constitutional provision. Various high courts, including the Calcutta High Court and the Bombay High Court, have struck down the appointment of parliamentary secretaries in the past. The Supreme Court ruling makes these appointments invalid all over the country.
The ceiling on the strength of ministries was intended to lay down an optimum standard for their size and to avoid wasteful public expenditure. There are principles of public morality and good politics involved in the prescription. But personal and political considerations of chief ministers and ruling party leaders ensured that as many members of the legislature were given a share of the pie as possible. The post becomes useful when ruling parties want to maintain their majorities and to appease disaffected legislators, when they face challenges from the Opposition or when they invite members of the Opposition to their fold. The parliamentary secretaries have no defined jobs and responsibilities but they enjoy most of the perks and powers of office. The post is just an excuse to keep the MLAs happy and friendly. After the recent change of government in Nagaland, 25 parliamentary secretaries and nine advisors, who are secretaries in another guise, were appointed by Chief Minister T R Zeliang. Now, all 47 MLAs who support the chief minister are either ministers or parliamentary secretaries.
The court held that state Assemblies did not have the power and competence to create the post which goes against the constitutional scheme. It also called such appointments irrational when the Constitution had made provisions for various offices connected with the legislature. This should have been obvious to party leaders but they chose to violate the Constitutional provision. It is possible that they will look for other ways to please legislators with the help of the tax payers’ money. But the court has done well to close one blatantly wrong and illegal option.