Supreme Court of India
HAR SHARAN VERMA versus TRIBHUVAN NARAIN SINGH, CHIEF MINISTER U.P. & ANR.
- Decided
- 16 March 1971
- Judges listed
- S.M. SIKRI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · 1971 INSC 77
- Also cited as
- (1971) 1 SCC 616
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
- ASHOK PANDEY versus KM. MAYAWATI AND ORS.
- B.R. KAPUR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
- S.R. CHAUDHURI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
- S.P. ANAND, INDORE versus H.D. DEVE GOWDA AND ORS.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
In this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution a short question the interpretation of cl. 4 of Article 164 of the Constitution arises. This question has arisen in connection with the appointment on October, 18, 1970, of Shri Tribbuvan Narain Singh as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He was not a member of either House Legislature of the Srate of Uttar Pradesh at the time of bis appointment.
p. 2, margin A
The appellant, who is a rate-Payer of the Lucknow Constituency to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative As$embly, filed a petitioi) under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court cballenging the appointment of the respondent as Chief Minister. The High Court dismissed the petition but granted a certificaite under Art. 132 of the Constitution, and the appeal is now before us.
p. 2, margin B
Article 164(4) reads as follows :
p. 2, margin C
"164(4) A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State sball at the expiration of that periodi cease to be a
p. 2, margin C
Minister." The appellant contends that this clause only applies when a Miw- $ter, who is a Member of the Legislature of the State, loses his seat and the idea behind cl. (4) of Art. 164 is to give him a period of six months to get himself re-elected. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Singhvi, contends thait the scope of cl. (4) cannot be whittled down in this manner as there is no warrant in the language of the article. He further says that even in England a person can be a Minister without being a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. He further points out that a number of i:onstitutions contain similar provisions.
p. 2, margin D
It seems to us that cl. (4) of Art. 164 must be interpreted the context oi Arts. 163 and 164 of the Constitution. Article 163(1) provides that "there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of bis functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion." · Under cl.(!) of Art. 164, the Chief Minister has to be appointed by the Governor a.nd the other Ministers have to be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister. They all bold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Cause (!) does not provide any qualification for the person to be selected by the Governor as the Chief Minister or Minister, but cl. (2) makes it essential that the Council of Ministers sha.Jl be collectively responsible to the Legislative As$embly of the State. This is the only condition that the Constitution prescribes in this behalf.
p. 2, margin E
v, (Sikri, C.
p. 3
The appellant says that if the interpretation put by Court is correct it would be possible for a Governor a. Chief Minister and Ministers none of whom are Members the State Legislature. He said that this could not have templated. But if the Legislative Assembly of the State this Council of Ministers would be collectively responsible this nnlikely Council of Ministers there is nothing in the tution which would make this appointment illegal.
p. 3, margin A
The appellant drew our a.ttention to Art. 175 in which provided that "the Governor may address the Legislative or, in the case of a State having a Lagislative Council, either of !he Legisla.ture of the State, or both Houses assembled ancl may for that purpose require the attendance of Members." He .said that it would be rather strange that the Ministers, were not members of either the Legislative Assembly or lative Council would not be present. But it seems to virtue of Art. 177 the Ministers, even if they are not Members a Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council would be to be present at such a meeting.
p. 3, margin B
It seems to us that in the context of the other provisions the Counstitution referred to above there-is no reason why words of cl. ( 4) of Art. 164 should be cut down in any manner confined to a case where Minister loses for some reason in the Lei;slature of the State. We are assured that the we have given to cl. (4) of Art. 164 is the correct one proceedings of the Constituent Assembly and the position obtains in England, Austrdia and South Africa.
p. 3, margin D
An amendment(') was proposed in the Constituent that the following be substituted :
p. 3, margin E
"A Minister shall, at the time of his being chosen such be a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legisla-
p. 3, margin E
tive Council of the States as the case may be." This amendment was, however, negatived.
p. 3, margin E
It is interesting to note the position in England. to Jennings(') :
p. 3, margin G
"It is a well-settled convention that these ministers should be either peers or members of the House of Commons. There have been occasional exceptions.
p. 3, margin G
(I) Constituent Assembly Debates dated June I, 1949 Oftlcial Vol. VIII. p. s~t.
p. 3, margin H
(2) Cabin~ Government by Jennings-third edition, page 60.
p. 3, margin H
Gladstone once held office out of Parliament for nine months. 'The Scottish Law officers sometimes, as in 1923 and 1924. are not in parliament, General Smuts was minister without portfolio . and a member of the War Cabinet from 1916 until 1918. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Malcolm MacDonald were members of the Cabinet though not in Parliament from the general eleetion of November 1935 until early in 1936."
p. 4
"The House of Commons is, however, critical of such exceptions."
p. 4, margin B
S. 64 of the Commonwelth of Australia Constitution Act inter a/ia provides that "after the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senetor or a member of the House representatives." Commenting on this Quick & Garran(~ state as follows :
p. 4, margin B
"The appointment of a Federal Ministry will necessarily precede the election of the first Federal Parliament. There must be a Ministry to assist and advise the Governor General in the performance of Executive Acts essential for the conduct of the first general election. The first Federal Ministry. cannot at their appointment be members of the Federal Parliament, because at the time of their appointment there is no such Parliament in existence. After the first general election, however, no Federal Minister is permitted to hold office for a longer peribd than three months, unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
p. 4, margin C
Section 32 of the Constitution Act of South Australia (4th January, 1856) contained a similar provision, viz .. that after the first general election of the South Australian Parliament, no person should hold the offices of' Chief Secretary. Attorney-Oeneral, Treasurer, Commissioner of Crown Lands; and Immigration, or Commissioner of Public Works, for more than three calendar months, unless he should be a member of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly." This shows that Art. 164 (4l has an ancient lineage. Section 14< 1) of the South Africa Act, 1909 reads thus :
p. 4, margin E
"The Govemor-Generaf may appoint officers not exceeding (twelve) in number to administer such departments of State of the Union as the Governor-General in
p. 4, margin G
(3) "Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth" by Quick & Garrail:, p. 711.
p. 4, margin H
Council may establish; such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Executive Council and shall be the King's ministers of State for the Union. After the first general election of members of the House of Assembly, as hereinafter provide, no minister shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes member of either House of Parliament."
p. 5, margin A
Hahlo and Kahn(') state thus :
p. 5, margin B
"The rule of responsible government that Ministers must be Members of Parliament is ensured by the statutory requirement that they be or within three months become members of either House."
p. 5, margin B
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. There be no order as to costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed.
p. 5, margin C
(4) ;,The British Commonwealth-The Deve opment of its Laws Coustitutic'ns" by Hahlo & Kahn (Vol. Sp. 130). '
p. 5, margin C