The Constitution does not prohibit a Member of Parliament from simultaneously holding the office of Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister, affirming the legality of Section 3(a) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

Rajan Roy, J.

1. Heard Shri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This is a public interest litigation which was initiated in the year 2017 seeking following reliefs:-

“i) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction declaring appointment of opposite party nos. 5 and 6 as Chief Minister and Minister (Deputy Chief Minister) of U.P., respectively, null and void w.e.f. 19.03.2017, after summoning the necessary records;

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction of or in the nature of quo warranto requiring the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 to explain on as to under what authority they are appointed as Chief Minister and Minister (Deputy Chief Minister) of U.P. and are continuing on the said post, as such;

iii) to issue an appropriate order or direction requiring the opposite party no. 2 to declare the seats of opposite party nos. 5 and 6 in the House of People (Lok Sabha) vacant;

iv) to issue an appropriate order, declaring Section 3 (a) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 ultra vires the Constitution of India;”

3. Relief nos. (ii) and (iii) have outlived their utility, as, the opposite parties no. 5 and 6 after being appointed as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of State of U.P. completed their term in 2020, when fresh elections were held. Their subsequent appointment as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of the State has not been assailed in this writ petition.

4. On being pointed out the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner accepted this fact but insisted that relief no. (i) still survives, as, a declaration is required to be given by this Court as to whether the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 were validly appointed as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister when they took oath on 19.03.2017 or their appointment was null and void. Such declaration according to him was necessary. Only to this extent he asserted that an adjudication in the context of relief no. (i) is required. Thus, undisputedly relief nos. (ii) and (iii) have become infructuous.

5. The facts of the case in brief are that the opposite parties no. 5 and 6, both were Members of Parliament when they took oath as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of the State of U.P. on 19.03.2017. They resigned from Membership of Parliament on 21.09.2017. In the interregnum, on 08.09.2017, both were elected as Members of the Vidhan Parishad i.e. within the period of six months stipulated in Article 164(4) of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to 'the Constitution'). They completed their tenure in 2020.

6. After fresh elections to the State Legislative Assembly they were again appointed as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister respectively and took oath on 25.03.2022. This is not a question before us.

7. It is not the case of the petitioner as specifically stated in Para 22 to 24 that appointment of the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 and their taking oath on 19.03.2017 as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, was bad in law as they were not Members of either house of the State Legislature. The grounds of challenge are different. They can be summarized as under:-

According to the petitioner’s counsel such appointment and taking oath was contrary to the implied constitutional restrictions and the very constitutional scheme which prohibits one person to hold two constitutional posts. Reference was made in this regard to Articles 63, 64, 69 and 70 of the Constitution in the context of the Vice- President assuming office of the President on the latter