A public interest litigation lacks merit if motivated by personal aspirations and failing to disclose interests.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia, praying as under:

"i. Issue a writ of Quo-Warranto or a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the appointments of the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) of Karnataka [Respondent No. 7 to Respondent No. 48] to the various boards, corporations, and other posts that confer cabinet rank and associated pecuniary benefits, as detailed in Government Notification No. DPAR 12 SK 2024 dated 26 January 2024, DPAR 87 SHSN 2023 dated 03.07.2023, DPAR 151 SHSN 2023 (Part-1) dated 06.01.2024, DPAR 151 SHSN 2023 (Part-1) dated 06.01.2024, DPAR 115 SHSN 2023 dated 18.08.2023, DPAR 44 SHSN 2023 dated 01.06.2023, DPAR 46 SHSN 2023 dated 31.07.2023, DPAR 117 SHSN 2023 dated 19.08.2023, DPAR 151 SHSN 2023 (Part-1) dated 06.01.2024 seen in Annexures-B, ANNEXURE-C, ANNEXURE-D, ANNEXURE-E, ANNEXURE-F, ANNEXURE-G, ANNEXURE-H, ANNEXURE-I and ANNEXURE-J respectively.

ii. Declare the appointments to be illegal and unconstitutional on the grounds of violation of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India and on the basis that they constitute an office of profit as per the criteria laid down by the constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal (Supra).

iii. Direct the Respondents to immediately remove the appointees from their respective positions and withdraw all pecuniary benefits and facilities accorded to them in connection with these appointments.

iv. Cancel the primary membership of the appointed MLAs and MLCs from the Karnataka Legislature on the grounds that their appointments and associated pecuniary benefits violate the principles of natural justice and the office of profit rule, thereby disqualifying them from holding legislative positions.

v. Grant any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity, considering the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. It is the petitioner's case that a large number of members elected to the Legislative Assembly in the State of Karnataka have been appointed to Boards, Corporations, and other posts with a rank equivalent to that of a Minister and also the associated pecuniary benefits. The petitioner contends that the same violates the second proviso to Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India , which restricts the total number of Ministers in any State to 15% of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of the State, and require that the total number be brought in conformity with the provisions of the said clause within the stipulated period.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, there are 224 members in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and further 75 members in the Legislative Council. He submits that, accordingly, the maximum number of Ministers permitted under Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India is 33 (15% of 224). Notwithstanding the said limit, approximately 159 persons are drawing remuneration equivalent to that of the Ministers, along with the other attendant benefits, by virtue of their being appointed in various Corporations, Boards, etc.

4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent State countered the aforesaid submissions. He submits that although the persons who are appointed to Boards and Corporations may be drawing a salary equivalent to that of the Ministers, they are not Ministers for the