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

1998 Supreme(Ker) 353

Judges : K.NARAYANA KURUP
Asafali - Appellant
Versus
E.K.Nayanar - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 3016 of 1998
Decided On : 08/21/1998
Advocates Appeared :
A.K. Basheer Advocate General (M.K. Damodaran) & C.N. Radhakrishnan For Petitioner For Respondents

The Chief Minister can delegate certain functions to others, especially in matters related to constituency representation, and such delegation is not illegal.

Headnote:

Delegation of Powers - Chief Minister Representation - The court held that the Chief Minister can delegate certain functions to others, especially in matters related to constituency representation, and such delegation is not illegal. The court also emphasized the practical impossibility for the Chief Minister to personally attend to all matters in the constituency, and recognized the statutory provision allowing nominees to act in appropriate situations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a declaration that the Chief Minister, by appointing a representative for the Thalassery Constituency, violated the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and the oath of office and secrecy as Chief Minister, and should demit the office of Chief Minister.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment of a representative for the constituency did not constitute a violation of the Chief Minister's essential constitutional functions, and therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner was not granted. The court also dismissed the petition as an abuse of the court process and imposed costs on the petitioner.

Issues: Violation of Oath of Allegiance and Office, Delegation of Chief Minister's Functions, Abuse of Court Process

Ratio Decidendi: The Chief Minister can delegate certain functions to others, especially in matters related to constituency representation, and such delegation is not illegal. Practical impossibility for the Chief Minister to personally attend to all matters in the constituency. Statutory provision allowing nominees to act in appropriate situations.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioner.

Judgment :-

K. Narayana Kurup, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General at length.

2. The prayer in this Original Petition is for a declaration that the first respondent - Chief Minister having violated the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala representing the Thalassery Constituency is no longer qualified or eligible to represent the said Constituency, declare that the first respondent having violated the oath of office and secrecy as Chief Minister of the State of Kerala, he is liable to demit the office of Chief Minister forthwith, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P1 press release and for other incidental reliefs. As per Ext. P1 press release, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has been appointed the representative of the Chief Minister in Thalassery Constituency. The contention advanced is that the Chief Minister being a constitutional functionary, the duties, responsibilities, powers and privileges of the Chief Minister cannot be delegated to another person. Considering the multitudinous functions which a Chief Minister is called upon to discharge, I do not think that this submission has any legs to stand. No doubt, it is true that the Chief Minister cannot abdicate his essential constitutional functions to his chosen delegate(s). Perforce, such functions will have to be discharged by him personally and not through his surrogates. Going by Ext. P1, what has been done is that the 2nd respondent has been appointed as the representative of the Chief Minister in Thalassery Constituency. For the reason already stated, I do not think that there is anything illegal in it especially when it is remembered that the Chief Minister cannot personally attend to all the matters in his constituency. Certainly this calls for somebody to act as his nominee. This position finds statutory recognition in S.54(8) of the Kerala Municipality Act which reads as follows:

"54(8) Where a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State is appointed as Minister or elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker or appointed as the Government Chief Whip or recognised as Leader of the Opposition, he may nominate a person from the area he represents as Member to represent him in the District Planning Committee or the District Planning Committees of the district or districts to which he was a permanent invitee".

When legal backing is provided so as to enable the representative to attend the District Planning Committee, I do not find any reason why he shall not be authorised to represent the Chief Minister in the Constituency in a general way (vide Ext. P1) to attend to non-specific matters by way of nursing the constituency. Tracing legal history of England one finds in the Lords absent peers were even entitled to vote by proxy and indisposition of the Monarch was made good by proxy. Back home we have umpteen number of statutes in which provision is made for nominees to act in appropriate situation(s). In a lighter vein, I may observe that in real life we find even proxy marriages being performed and surrogate motherhood being created. Therefore, taking a pragmatic view, I am satisfied that Ext. P1 is not in any way liable to be faulted and contention in that regard is accordingly rejected.

3. As regards the prayer for declaration sought, it has to be remembered that the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Therefore, it may not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction for this Court to grant the relief as prayed. I do not find any abdication of essential constitutional function on the part of the first respondent so as to catalyse this Court to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is an integral part of the functioning of the high constitutional office like that of the Chief Minister to delegate certain functions to othe

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