Karnataka High Court bins PIL over appointment of political secretaries, advisors to CM

The High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the appointment of political secretaries and advisors to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

The petitioner S Umapathi, a Bengaluru-based advocate, had challenged the appointment of Dr K Govindraj and Nazeer Ahmed as political secretaries, as well as the appointment of Sunil Kanugolu as chief advisor, and K V Prabhakar as media advisor.

The petitioner had contended that the appointments, equivalent to the rank of a Cabinet minister, are without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. The petitioner had cited Article 164(1A) of the Constitution, which prescribes that the total number of ministers, including the chief minister, shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly.

According to the petitioner, with these appointments, the 15% ceiling has been breached. The state government had argued that these persons are not ministers though they have been conferred with the Cabinet rank.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit noted that the text of Clause (1A) of Article 164, which has been introduced by the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, with effect from January 1, 2004, prescribing the ceiling limit as to the number of ministers is as clear as the Gangetic waters.

"It is nobody's case that the private respondents have been appointed as ministers. If the private respondents were appointed as ministers, there could have been scope for the invocation of the subject provision of the Article. Merely because a Cabinet status is conferred on a particular appointee, that per se does not make him a minister within the meaning of Article 164," the court said.

The bench further said, "The status of Cabinet rank is conferred on persons appointed to posts/offices other than that of ministers as well, needs no research. Since the enactment of the Constitution, in several states, eg, Assam, Meghalaya, etc, persons are appointed with such status even when they are not members of the Council of Ministers. Such status is conferred for various reasons that fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and therefore, the court cannot undertake their deeper examination in Judicial Review."