IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DIPANKAR DATTA, G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Ratan Soli Luth – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 10300 of 2021
Decided on : 13-08-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 163, (3)(e) and (5) of Article 171 and 226 - Representation of People Act, 1950 - Section 10 - Maharashtra Government Rules of Business, 1975 - Rules 9, 12 and 15 - Public Interest Litigation - Composition of the Legislative Councils - Seeking direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India calling for record and papers pertaining to the Hon'ble Governors failure to make nominations under Article 171(5) of Constitution of India - Whether, in terms of Section 10 of 1950 Act and Third Schedule read with clauses (3)(e) and (5) of Article 171 of Constitution, or RoB framed under clause (3) of Article 166 of Constitution, any discretion is available to Governor not to nominate members of Maharashtra Legislative Council upon receipt of advice of Council of Ministers? If so, whether Governor is required to take any further action - In event answer to the above question is in affirmative, does Governor not have a duty to speak.
Finding of the Court:
There is no hesitation for this Court to hold that the Governor does have a power, while a case is under his consideration, to require that such case be laid before Council of Ministers for consideration for further action, whereupon case shall be so laid. It can never be and hence was not urged that while considering names recommended by Council of Ministers for nomination to Legislative Assembly, such as one under consideration, no application of mind by Governor, to ascertain whether recommendations are within bounds of Constitution, is required. Should upon such application of mind the Governor considers it proper to accept advice of such Council, he may proceed to make nomination. If not, the Governor may in his discretion return the recommendations for further action by the Council of Ministers in terms of whatever observation is made by the Governor or otherwise - Governor is not answerable to the Court in view of Article 361 of the Constitution and no direction can issue to the Governor; hence, the petitioner has not joined the Secretary of the Governor as a party despite liberty granted by an earlier order of this Court. Before parting, this Court expresses hope and trust that things will be set right at an early date
Result: Public Interest Litigation disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Dipankar Datta, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. This Public Interest Litigation raises an interesting question in regard to the powers and role of the Governor to make nomination on the Legislative Council as conferred by clauses (3)(e) and (5) of Article 171 of the Constitution read with section 10 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (hereafter “the 1950 Act”) and the Third Schedule thereto.
2. Maharashtra is one of the few Indian States the Legislature whereof has two houses, i.e., the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. The Legislative Assembly is comprised of 288 members, who are chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State. Article 171(1) of the Constitution ordains that the total number of members in the Legislative Council shall not exceed one-third of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly of that State whereas, the proviso thereto, ordains that the number of members in any case shall not be less than forty.
3. Clause (2) of Article 171 of the Constitution ordains that until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the composition of the Legislative Council of a State shall be as provided in clause (3). For facility of reference, such provision together with clause (5) of Article 171, which has to be read together, are reproduced hereunder:
(1) ***
(2) ***
(3) Of the total number of members of the Legislative Council of a State—
(a) as nearly as may be, one-third shall be elected by electorates consisting of members of municipalities, district boards and such other local authorities in the State as Parliament may by law specify;
(b) as nearly as may be, one-twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of persons residing in the State who have been for at least three years graduates of any university in the territory of India or have been for at least three years in possession of qualifications prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament as equivalent to that of a graduate of any such university;
(c) as nearly as may be, one-twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of persons who have been for at least three years engaged in teaching in such educational institutions within the State, not lower in standard than that of a secondary school, as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament;
(d) as nearly as may be, one-third shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State from amongst persons who are not members of the Assembly;
(e) the remainder shall be nominated by the Governor in accordance with the provisions of clause (5).
(4) ***
(5) The members to be nominated by the Governor under sub-clause (e) of clause (3) shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely:—
Literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service.”
4. Section 10 of the 1950 Act read with the Third Schedule thereof is the law enacted by the Parliament, which now provides for the allocation of seats in the Legislative Councils.
In terms of such provision, the number of members of the Legislative Council of Maharashtra shall be 78, of whom 22, 7, 7 and 30 members shall be elected in terms of sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause (3) of Article 171, respectively, totaling 66. The remainder, i.e., 12 members are to be nominated by the Governor in accordance with clause (5) of Article 171 of the Constitution.
5. The term of all the 12 members nominated earlier ended by efflux of time. By June 16, 2020 all the seats were vacant. Resultantly, the Council of Ministers met on October 29, 2021 and unanimously resolved to render appropriate aid and advice to the Governor. In such meeting, the Council of Ministers decided to recommend names of 12 individuals, who did not incur disqualification under Article 191 of the Constitution, to the Governor for nomination in terms of clause (5) of Article 171 thereof. The Chief M
B.R. Kapur vs. State of T.N. and another, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 231
Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti vs. State of Rajasthan and others
K.B. Nagur, M.D. (Ayurvedic) vs. Union of India
M.P. Special Police Establishment vs. State of M.P. and others
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & ors.
Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab
Rameshwar Prasad & ors. (VI) vs. Union of India & anr.
State of Gujarat & anr. vs. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) & ors.
Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
State of Bihar vs. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lal Jute Mills & anr.
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.