The Karnataka High Court is engaged in a Public Interest Litigation challenging the decision of the state government to confer cabinet rank on 42 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) who head different boards and corporations. With Suri Payala from Bengaluru and an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board being the petitioner, this matter has generated a whirlwind of debates on its constitutional ramifications and the likely effect on governance.
The Core of the PIL: Alleged Constitutional Violations
The petitioner argues that the bestowing of the cabinet rank on these legislators violates numerous constitutional provisions, including:
- Article 164(1A): This article, inserted through the 91st Amendment to the Constitution, limits the size of the ministerial council in a state to 15% of the total strength of the legislative assembly. This comes down to 34 ministers in Karnataka. The petitioner contends that this limit was violated with 33 in the council of ministers and 42 legislators having been given cabinet rank.
- Articles 102(1) and 191(1): In brief, these articles disqualify any member from election for an “office of profit” under the government. The petitioner submits that the cabinet rank is an office of profit because it carries certain perks and financial benefits that include the receipt of higher salaries, official vehicles with drivers, house rent allowances (HRA), and medical reimbursement claims.
- Conflict with Democratic Principles: Alternatively, the PIL claims cabinet rank conferred upon legislators heading boards and corporations would subvert democratic integrity as it induces potential conflict of interest. Therefore, this together constitutes a possible Window for legislators to favor administrative job appointments over legislative functions as they would likely be abdicating their duties to their constituencies.
The High Court’s Observations
Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun in the high court were informed by their AAP judge that the issues brought forth in this PIL were touching on constitutional and democratic concerns. This was during its early hearings on February 21, 2025, where the court said that these are “serious” matters to be taken into consideration due to the public interest character and possible subsequent governance implications.
They ordered the state government to file their response in detail by 18 March, with the matter to be communicated again on 27 March. The court said its observations are preliminary, and all legal questions raised remain open for determination after completion of pleadings.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Stand
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, representing Suri Payala, argued that while appointing MLAs and MLCs as chairpersons to boards is not itself an issue in such appointments, the grant of cabinet rank to them breaches constitutional boundaries that were put in place to secure good governance. He argued:
- The appointments breach Article 164(1A) by exceeding the size of ministers that can be appointed.
- The positions are considered offices of profit, which disqualify the legislators under Articles 102(1) and 191(1).
- Such appointments erode public trust in governance by encouraging legislators to seek additional roles for personal gain.
The petitioner also quoted the ruling given by the Supreme Court in the case of Guru Gobind Basu vs. Sankari Prasad Ghosal (1964), where criteria were laid down to measure whether a position is an office of profit. In this case, the interference goes in favor of financial gain, the government character of appointment, and approval or interference in any decision-making process by the authority in question.
State Government’s Defense
Representing the state government, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that the same issue was dealt with in a previous case (Umapathi S v. State of Karnataka), where the SC held that the legislators assisting the Chief Minister in performing his role, do not function as ministers in a literal sense. Thus Articles 164(1A), 102(1) and 191(1) were considered not applicable.
The government has defended these appointments as administrative and not running against constitutional provisions or democratic principles.
Broader Implications
The suit has wider implications for governance in Karnataka and other states:
- Adherence to Constitutional Limits: If an adverse ruling is made against these appointments, a stronger constitutional restriction would be required against governmental expansion as well as the prevention of misappropriation of state resources.
- Legislative Accountability: The case demonstrates the distortion of legislative duties on the part of legislators by administrative perquisites associated with cabinet rank.
- Judicial Precedent: A verdict in favor of the petitioner would also create judicial precedents for similar cases on the ground across Indian states thereby ensuring stricter adherence to constitutional provisions about the office of profit and limits to the size of council.
- Public Trust: The case may reflect on the citizen’s trust regarding the governance being an upright institution and that legislators are not above self-interests.
Conclusion
This debate in the Karnataka High Court on the PIL points very much to the place of the judiciary as the custodian of constitutional and democratic values. Awaiting the next level of debate on both sides, it has already reignited some larger debates regarding how governance can be more efficient, what the legislators are accountable for, and how the horizontal and vertical separation of powers interplay in India’s federalism.
The final resolution will most probably have ramifications not only for Karnataka but for administrative conduct throughout India. How the court negotiates the constitutional do’s and don’ts versus the practical concerns in this volatile situation remains to be seen.
About Author
Syeda Ayesha is a passionate 3rd year BBA LLB student at Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Law in Hyderabad, with a special interest in criminal law and family law. She has built her academic journey on a solid foundation of legal principles, progressing from basic to advanced levels, and is eager to apply this knowledge in practice. Determined to gain practical experience, she is committed to learning more about the law. Ayesha is excited about the opportunity to work in a dynamic legal environment, which she sees as a valuable avenue for both personal and professional growth.
