ORDER : - This application for special leave is directed against the order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 17th October, 1986, rejecting the petitioners application in limine by a reasoned order under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of Shri Sita Ram Kesari as a Minister of State of the Central Cabinet though he was not a Member of either House of Parliament then. There is a delay of 11 days in the making of this application and the petitioner who has appeared in person has not applied for condonation of delay. The petitioner appeared in person to support the application and relied upon the written note filed by him which is already a part of the record. He also filed a printed book-let where reference to the point in issue has been indicated.

2. Shri Sita Ram Kesari has admittedly ceased to be a Minister and the issue is no more a live one. It is a well accepted practice that Courts do not undertake interpretation of the Constitution unless there be a live issue before them. The petitioner has indicated in his written note and reiterated the same during the oral submissions that for the last 25 years he has been raking up the same issue and no Court has ever examined the tenability of his contention on merits. Since there is a question of limitation condonation of which has to be considered after giving the petitioner an opportunity to make an application therefor, we wanted to be satisfied if there was on merit a point deserving consideration of this Court. We have, therefore, examined the tenability of the contention canvassed by the petitioner. As stated earlier, the High Court has by a reasoned order dismissed the writ petition in limine. Having heard the petitioner, we are inclined to agree that the High Court came to the correct conclusion. Two Articles of the Constitution and a brief reference to the relevant debate in the Constituent Assembly clearly indicate that the submission advanced by the petitioner has no merit. Article 75 makes provision for Central Ministers. Clause (5) thereof provides. :-

"A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a Member of either House of Parliament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister."

Article 88 provides :-

"Every Minister and the Attorney General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but shall not by virtue of this article be entitled to vote."

The combined effect of these two Articles is that a person not being a member of either House of Parliament can be a Minister up to a period of six months. Though he would not have any right to vote, he would be entitled to participate in the proceedings thereof. The petitioner admits that in the thirty-seven years of constitutional regime in this country there have been several instances where a person has held the office as Minister either at the Centre or in the State (there are corresponding provisions for the State), not being a member of the appropriate Legislature at the time of appointment.

3. A brief reference to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly would throw enough light on the question. A member of the Constituent Assembly proposed an amendment to the following effect :-

"No person should be appointed a Minister unless at the time of his appointment, be is elected member of the House."

(This exactly is the proposition of the petitioner). Mr. Ambedkar opposed the amendment by saying :-

"Now with regard to the first point, namely, that no person shall be entitled to be appointed a Minister unless he is at the time of his appointment an elected member of the House, I think it forgets to take into consideration certain important matters which cannot be overlooked. First is this and it is perfectly possible to imagine that a person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of