SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Abdul Azeem – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17396 of 2023 (GM - RES)
Decided On : 28-05-2024

Advocates appeared:
Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Sri M.S.Mukarram, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, AG a/w Sri Ismail Zabiulla, AAG a/w Smt.Navya Shekhar, AGA

Headnote:(A) Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 - Sections 3, 4, and 5 - Writ petition challenging the notification cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission - Court held that the appointment was subject to the pleasure of the Government and could be revoked without notice or reason, supported by the judgments in B.P. Singhal and others - Doctrine of pleasure allows for removal at any time, provided it is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. (Paras 9, 10, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, with a background as Assistant Police Commissioner and previous Chairman of the Commission, was re-nominated until October 2025. His second tenure faced cancellation by a notification from the Government amidst changes in administration. (Paras 1-3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The right of the Government to nominate or de-nominate members under the Act was upheld, asserting that nominees do not possess a vested right to hold their positions. Removal does not necessitate adherence to principles of natural justice if it is exercised within the bounds of the law. (Paras 11, 12, 19)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had a right to continue in his role pending the pleasure of the State and the legality surrounding the notification of cancellation. (Para 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The decision emphasized that the doctrine of pleasure does not equate to an arbitrary removal; it must be performed reasonably and for valid reasons. The Supreme Court's views reinforced this by differentiating between fixed-term appointments and those subject to governmental pleasure. (Paras 22, 34)

Result: Writ petition dismissed, interim order dissolved.

Table of Content
1. removal under doctrine of pleasure. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's argument on fixed tenure. (Para 5 , 6)
3. no prejudice in petitioner's removal. (Para 7 , 8)
4. precedents on doctrine of pleasure's constraints. (Para 11 , 12)
5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 19 , 20)

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court initially seeking a direction to consider his representation dated 23-05-2023 and grant all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the petition, he raises a challenge to the Notification dated 15-12-2023 which removes the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Karnataka State Minorities Commission, Bengaluru ('the Commission for short).

2. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

    The petitioner claims to be a highly qualified citizen having M.A., LL.B. degree and retired as Assistant Police Commissioner and is known for his scientific investigation of high profile criminal cases. The petitioner was also a Member of the Legislative Council and later in the year 2019 was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission for a period of three years (hereafter referred as the 'first tenure'). The appointment was in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner completes his first tenure on 15-10-2022. On completion of first tenure, an order comes to be passed continuing the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission for another term of three years, for it come to an end on 15-10-2025. When the petitioner was functioning as Chairman of the Commission, the men who man the Government changed. On 22-05-2023 a tippani emerges from the office of the Chief Minister which is communicated by the Chief Secretary to all the Departments. The communication was that the nominations made by the earlier Government will have to be annulled. In furtherance of the aforesaid communication/tippani a Notification comes to be issued on 22-05-2023 by which the continued nomination of the petitioner/2nd tenure is cancelled. The petitioner represents to the respondent/State on 24-05-2023 seeking to withdraw the said Notification. Owing to the representation, a Notification comes to be issued on 24-05-2023 withdrawing the Notification dated 22-052023 whereby the notification which cancelled the nomination of the petitioner for the second tenure comes to be withdrawn.

4. The petitioner continues as Chairman of the Commission.

The petitioner between the dates 22-05-2023 and 24-05-2023 had submitted a representation 23-05-2023 seeking consideration of the said representation to complete the term as a Chairman for another 2 years and 5 months. When there was delay in consideration of the said representation, he had knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition by filing it on 05-08-2023. This Court initially issued notice to the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, it appears, the Government issues a Notification on 15-12-2023 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission. An application comes to be filed after issuing of the said Notification and this Court on 19-12-2023, on the application passes an order, which reads as follows:

    'Heard Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

    Learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice for the respondents - State.

    ORDER ON I.A.NO.1/2023

    Heard Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents - State.

    The petitioner is appointed as the Chair Person of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission by an order dated 15.10.2019 for a period of three years and subsequently, the tenure is extended on the same terms and conditions on 15.10.2022, again for a period of 3 years

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top