Karnataka High Court orders notice to govt on PIL challenging appointment of MLAs/MLCs as corporation heads

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday ordered notice to the state government and others in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of 42 MLAs and MLCs as chairpersons of various boards and corporations with the status and perks of cabinet ministers.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and M I Arun directed the state government to file a definite response observing that the issue bears constitutional and democratic importance.

The petition is filed by Suri Payala, a resident of Bengaluru city, who is Engineer in Chief Officer at the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). The petitioner has named 42 appointees, including R V Deshpande, A S Ponnanna, Vinay Kulkarni, N A Haris and others, in the petition, seeking for a direction to quash their appointments.

Senior advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the extension of benefits of cabinet rank ministers amounts to conferring on them the status of cabinet rank itself. The petitioner contended that under Article 164 (1A) of the constitution, the ceiling is 15 per cent of the total number of members of the legislative assembly who can be given cabinet rank, which in the context of state of Karnataka is 34 cabinet rank ministers.

He further submitted that these appointments with cabinet rank benefits also have a facet of direct infringement of Article 191 of the constitution read with the provisions of The Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of disqualification) Act, 1956. He also said that it is a serious issue of public concern since public exchequer is drained out to such appointees with the monetary benefits and perks, equivalent to the cabinet ministers.

On the other hand, Advocate General (AG) Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the state government, submitted that in Umapathi case, the Karnataka High Court in 2023 had already dealt with Article 164 (1A) and rejected the challenge insofar as secretaries and advisors to the Chief Minister. The AG said that the petitioner was an aspirant to the post of KSPCB chairperson’s post. When he was not appointed the petitioner challenged the appointment of KSPCB chairperson and the petition is pending.

“It transpires that even if the aspect that the violation of Article 164(1A) had come up before this court in Umapathy case and that it was dealt with as per the said judgement, as sought to be emphasised by Advocate General, the issues raised in this PIL petition does have the dimension of alleged violation of Article 191 of the constitution, namely that the respondents concerned have been holding the office of profit and that they are appointments and continuance in office stand in violation of the constitutional mandate,” the bench said.

The court further said, ”Undoubtedly the entire issue deserves serious attention in as much as it has a definite public interest element and democratic significance under the constitution. The issues arising as above bearing constitutional and democratic importance, deserves to be thrashed out finally. It would require a definite response from the state government.”