Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Vidadala Harinadhababu - Appellant
Versus
N.T.Ramarao - Respondent
W.P. No. 310/87 & 7328/89
Decided On : 08-31-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. R. Venugopala Reddy,Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao,Mr. E. Ayyapu Reddy,Mr. B.V. Subbaiah,Mr. Y. Sivarama Sastry,Mr. K. Jagannadha Rao,Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao
Held : There is no provision in the Constitution, nor is there any provision of law which regulates the conduct of a Minister which expression includes Chief Minister and Prime Minister. There is also no constitutional or statutory provision prohibiting a Minister from engaging himself in any profession, occupation, or business, whether actively for gain, or otherwise.
The Code of Conduct issued by the Union Government - and by the State Government - is of great significance and sanctity, though it is not statutory. It fills a great void. The Code is evolved with an eye upon good Government and clean administration, not only in action but also in appearance. It is binding upon all Ministers. It prescribes the authority who shall ensure observance thereof. The procedure to be followed by him and the action to be taken thereon is also left to him. A person is not deprived of his fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution on account of his accepting the Office of Minister. At the same time, the nature and character of the office, the duties and functions attached to it, and the power and position which it carries, necessarily involve and imply certain restrictions on those fundamental rights to the extent they are called for to ensure a proper and effective discharge of the powers and functions of the Office. The Code of Conduct evolved by the Union Government and the State Government - does contain salutary restrictions; but, since the Code cannot be treated as law within the meaning of Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19, the restrictions contained therein cannot be enforced by Court.
It is not possible to infer or deduce limitations whether of the nature contained in the Code Of Conduct or otherwise- from the scheme or text of the Constitution applying the theory of implied limitations-implied restrictions. In any event, the said theory is not available for evolving a whole set of rules governing the conduct of Ministers. Adopting such a course amounts to amending the Constitution at any rate, to an act of substantive lawmaking - which cannot be done by the High Court.
Constitutional Conventions relates to the working of the Government. They determine relations between the three wings of the State. They are distinct from the rules of conduct of Ministers, or other high constitutional functionaries.
The Office of a Minister is a political office. It is an elective officer. His oath of office obligates him to discharge the duties of a Minister faithfully and conscientiously. The oath office, however, does not say that he shall devote all his time to his official duties. It is a matter left to his good sense and his conscience. Holders of high constitutional offices like Ministers must act with a sense of self-discipline and with due regard to, and understanding of democratic norms and constitutional values even in the matter of their personal conduct.
The fact that a Minister has been held to be a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, does not mean that he is a public servant for all purposes. A Minister cannot be equated to a public servant. The concept of Master and servant has no application or relevance to the Office of a Minister. The Rules of Conduct applicable to civil servants, or the Fundamental Rules (requiring civil servants to place all their time at the disposal of the Government) are not applicable to Ministers.
The High Court has no power to enquire into the desirability or otherwise of the respondent s conduct, nor has it power to restrain him from engaging himself in the said activity. Much less can it declare him to be disqualified from holding the Office of Chief Minister on the said ground.
W.Ps. Dismissed
( 2 ) IN Jan. , 1987, the respondent made a statement that he is going to act in a Telugu movie, styled "brahmarishi Viswamithra" as "viswamithra". Immediately thereupon, W. P. No. 310; 1987 was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus "restraining the respondent herein from enacting in any films including brahmarishi Viswamithra while in office as the Hon ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as he is a public servant of State of Andhra Pradesh. . . " The petitioner is a practising advocate at Narasaraopet. He is an elector and also the Organizing Secretary of District Youth Congress, Guntur District. The main allegations in his writ petition are:- in Jan. 1987 the Government of Andhra Pradesh announced that elections will take place to Mandal Praja Parishads in the State on 15-3-1987. Prior to his entering the politics in 1982, the respondent was in cine-field. He was elected and came to power "only due to the film glamour the respondent enjoyed with the illiterate and gullible masses. However, during the three years of his stewardship, the respondent found that people have lost faith in his party. With a view to recapture the votes of illiterate and guillible public, he has hit upon a plan to enter cinema field again. Accordingly, he made a statement on 12-11987 that he is going to play the part of `viswamithra in a Telgu movie "brahmarishi Viswamithra". "the respondent is the sole Director, Producer, Editor, and also the Hero and his son Sri Balakrishna to enact three roles of Sri Rama, Dushyanatha, and Satya Harishchandra". The respondent is a "public servant" as defined in S. 21 (12) of the Indian Penal Code, and is amenable to the jurisdiction of Criminal courts for his acts, misdeeds, and omissions committed by him while in office. The Supreme Court has also held that Chief Minister is a "public servant", in AIR 1975 SC 1685. The office of Chief Minister is a full-time post. A Chief Minister should be accessible to the public as a full-time public servant all the 24 hours. As a matter of fact, there is no provision for a Chief Minister "to go on casual leave, sick leave, earned leave and the other benefits available to the other public servants". By entering the cinema-field the respondent is not only promoting the interests of his party but is also augmenting the resources of his party. He is doing it by misusing his official position. The picture Brahmarishi Viswamithra is to be inaugurated on 22-1-1987 at 12-00 Noon, according to the respondent s statement made on 16-1-1987, published in all local papers on the next day. It is therefore necessary to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent from acting in any films including "brahmarishi Viswamithra". The writ petition was filed on 19-1-1987. It was admitted on 20-1-1987.
( 3 ) ALONG with W. P. No. 310/87 the petitioner filed W. P. M. P. No. 360/87 for an interim direction restraining the respondent from acting in the said film. Notice was directed to the respondent, who appeared and filed a counter, common to the writ petition as well as the Miscellaneous Petition. In this counter-affidavit the respondent made the following submissions:- the writ petition is politically motivated and is, accordingly, liable to be rejected in limine. The Chief Minister may be a "public servant" within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, but that aspect has no relevance to the issue in question. There is no law prohibiting a Chief Minister from acting in films. The several allegations made in the writ affidavit are highly irresponsible and wholly irrelevant. There wi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
