IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ.
Dasoju Sravan Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Her Excellency, Hon’ble Governor, State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 180, 181 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legislative council composition and nomination process. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. the structure and functioning of the legislative council reflect the constitutional framework. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments on governor's power under article 361. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. defenses for the governor's rejection of nominations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. counterarguments on petitioners’ locus standi. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. discussions on legitimate expectations of the petitioners. (Para 16 , 19 , 30) |
| 7. court’s observations on governor's powers. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 8. legal principles regarding judicial review of the governor's actions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. court's final analysis of nomination validity and implications. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. the court quashed the governor's orders, ensuring due process and adherence to the council's advice. (Para 36) |
| 11. conclusion on the legality of orders and recommendations. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
ORDER :
(i) INTRODUCTION:
1. The State Legislature in Telangana is bicameral in nature. It has two Houses of Legislature, namely Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council Act, 2005, was enacted to provide for the creation of Legislative Council for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters supplemental, incidental and consequential thereto. Section 3 of the said Act provided for creation of Legislative Council for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into two successor States, namely the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act , 2014, provides that there shall be a Legislative Council for the successor States. Section 23 of the Reorganisation Act, 2014, provides that there shall be 40 seats in the Legislative Council for the State of Telangana. Out of the aforesaid 40 seats, six are to be filled up by the Governor under Article 171(3) read with Article 171(5) and (6) of the Constitution of India.
2. The core issue involved in these writ petitions is about the scope and power of the Governor under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India to make nominations for the Legislative Council of State of Telangana. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, relevant facts which lie in narrow compass need mention which are stated infra.
(ii) FACTS:
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 180 of 2024 has LL.B. degree and also has secured two Masters’ Degrees namely, Master of Arts with Specialization in Linguistics and Master of Business Administration. He has also worked as Project Associate with Administrative Staff College of India, wherein he was associated with internationally funded research projects. The petitioner has also served as Senior Assistant Professor in Human Resources Management with the Premier Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad and was awarded Doctorate degree in “Organizational Behavior” from Osmania University. He has also served as Director of Human Resource Development with M/s.Ceeyes Software Technologies Private Limited, and was also associated with M/s.Sierra Atlantic Inc as Associate Director. The petitioner has also served as General Manager (HR) in M/s.Satyam Computer Services Limited. The petitioner, initially, joined in Indian National Congress. However, subsequently, he joined in Telangana Rashtra Samithi, a political party and claims to have functioned as a star campaigner of the party in Hyderabad city. The petitioner in W.P. No. 181 of 2024 has Bachelor’s degree in Arts. He was a trade union leader and is a social worker.
4. A meeting of the Council of Ministers was held on 31.07.2023, wherein it was resolved to nominate the petitioners as Members of Legislative Council. However, the Governor by orders dated 19.09.2023 rejected the nomination of the petitioners for the post of Member of Legislative Council under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India inter-alia on the following grounds:
Ashok Sadarangani vs. Union of India
A. Sanjeevi Naidu vs. State of Madras
Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab
B.R. Kapur vs. State of Tamil Nadu
B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India
Calcutta Gas Co. vs. State of West Bengal
Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of A.P. AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172
Har Sharan Varma vs. Chandra Bhan Gupta
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed
J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan
Mahabir Prasad Sharma vs. Prafulla Chandra Ghose
Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Pu Myllai Hlychho vs. State of Mizoram
Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India
Rakhi Ray vs. High Court of Delhi
Ram Pravesh Singh vs. State of Bihar
Ratan Soli Luth vs. State of Maharashtra
Ram Umeshwari Suthoo vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab
Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra
State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta
Satyanarayana Sinha Dr vs. S. Lal and Co. (1973) 2 SCC 696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
State of Orissa vs. Rajasaheb Chandanmall
State of Punjab vs. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
State of Kerala vs. A. Lakshmikutty
State of Gujarat vs. R.A. Mehta
The Governor's nominations under Article 171(5) require adherence to constitutional procedures, with judicial review available for actions deemed ultra vires or in bad faith.
The Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 171(5), with judicial review permitted in cases of ultra vires actions or mala fides.
The Governor holds discretionary power under Article 200 and is not mandated to adhere to a set timeframe for assenting bills.
The Governor has discretion under Articles 163 and 171 of the Constitution but must act on Cabinet recommendations, which can be withdrawn before a formal decision is made.
The Governor is bound by the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, but his formal authorization is required for release, as observed in Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147.
The Speaker has the exclusive authority to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, and must act within a reasonable time to uphold constitutional mandates.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.