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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 75

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ.
Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Her Excellency – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.180 and 181 of 2024
Decided on : 07-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Mr. V.Murali Manohar, Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, Ms. V.Dyumani
For the Respondent: Mr. S.Ashok Anand Kumar, Mr. L.Aravind Reddy, Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, Mr. Avinash Desai, Mr. Kopal Sharraf

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 171(5) and 361 - The Governor’s power to nominate Members to Legislative Council and the extent of judicial review over his actions - The Court ruled that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and that his discretionary powers are limited. Judicial review is permissible if the exercise of power is ultra vires or suffers from mala fides. The Governor's rejection of nominations for lack of fulfillment of criteria was quashed. (Paras 26, 28, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought nomination as Members of Legislative Council, which the Governor rejected citing insufficient criteria fulfillment. Subsequently, the Council of Ministers made new nominations in favor of other candidates during pendency of the writ petitions. (Paras 3, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Governor's rejection of the nominations was inappropriate and the recommendation should have been reconsidered. Therefore, the action taken against the petitioners was unlawful due to insufficient justification and lack of required documentation. (Para 35)

Issues: The main issues included the Governor's scope of discretion under Article 171(5), maintainability of writ petitions influenced by Article 361 immunity, and the validity of the Governor's orders rejecting the petitioners' nominations. (Paras 26, 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that the Governor is required to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers unless otherwise specified by Constitution. The immunity provided under Article 361 does not exempt the Governor's decisions from judicial scrutiny where illegality or mala fides are present. (Paras 27-29)

Result: The orders dated 19-09-2023 were quashed, affirming that the Governor must act as per the Council of Ministers' recommendations, highlighting the Governor's limited discretion regarding nominations. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. nomination process examination (Para 3 , 4)
2. judicial review of governor's discretionary actions (Para 8 , 10 , 12)
3. governor's actions must adhere to constitutional provisions (Para 26 , 29)
4. quashing of governor's orders (Para 36 , 37)

ORDER :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

(i) INTRODUCTION:

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:

    (i) There is no apparent fulfillment of the pre-conditions required under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India.

    (ii) The methodology adopted for consideration of the case of the petitioners has not been enclosed.

    (iii) No reports from Intelligence and other agencies indicating that the petitioners have not incurred any disqualification under sub-sections 8 to 11(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

    (iv) The summary provided by the petitioners does not indicate any special achievements in Literature, Science, Art, Co-operative Movement and Social Service.

5. In the aforesaid factual background, the writ petitions were filed on 07.12.2023. However, the office raise

            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