The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday struck down a 2006 law that allowed Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) to be appointed as Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPSs). The Double Bench, led by Justices Vivek Thakur and Bipin Chander Negi, declared the Himachal Pradesh Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances, Powers, Privileges, and Amenities) Act, 2006 “void ab initio” — meaning it was legally invalid from its inception. This decision has far-reaching implications, effectively annulling the appointments of six CPSs and impacting the state government’s administrative framework.

The High Court ruling marked a significant setback for Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, who had appointed six CPSs in January 2023 to support the Cabinet following his party’s victory in the state elections. The nullified appointments include those of prominent Congress MLAs such as Sanjay Awasthi (Arki), Sunder Singh (Kullu), Ram Kumar (Doon), Mohan Lal Brakta (Rohru), Ashish Butail (Palampur), and Kishori Lal (Baijnath). The court order mandated the immediate withdrawal of all privileges, salaries, and allowances afforded to these CPSs, classifying their appointments as unconstitutional and their positions as usurpations of public office.

Central to the court’s decision is the contention that the 2006 Act violated constitutional provisions, particularly Article 164(1-A), which limits the size of the Council of Ministers. The court referred to a 2017 Supreme Court ruling in the Bimolangshu Roy case, in which a similar law in Assam was invalidated for extending ministerial-like powers to CPSs, thus violating constitutional restrictions on the executive's structure. The Himachal High Court emphasized that the CPSs, though not designated as Ministers, wielded significant governmental power, which blurred the line between CPSs and cabinet ministers.

Justice Negi noted that the CPSs enjoyed privileges akin to those of Ministers, such as the right to access official files, participate in decision-making, and even fly the national flag on their vehicles. These powers, the court argued, enabled CPSs to wield influence in governance despite not being Cabinet Ministers — a role that the Constitution limits. This dilution of executive responsibilities breached the principles of constitutional governance, making the CPS Act indefensible.

In addition to quashing the law, the Court dismissed the protections offered by the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Members (Removal of Disqualifications) Act, 1971. The 2006 Act had sought to shield CPSs from disqualification by classifying them as outside the “office of profit.” However, the court clarified that these protections were equally unconstitutional, dismantling the legal foundation that had allowed CPSs to operate without threat to their MLA status.

BOX

Will challenge decision in SC: Himachal A-G

Himachal Pradesh Advocate-General Anoop Ratna said that the State Government intends to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court. He argued that Himachal’s CPS Act was distinct from the Assam law referenced in the judgment, noting that the powers assigned to CPSs in Himachal were supposedly more limited.

Ratna’s remarks underscored the government’s belief that a nuanced interpretation of the CPS role may yet uphold its validity, and the move to the Supreme Court seeks to clarify this legislative prerogative.

However, not all government voices are aligned. Technical Education Minister Rajesh Dharmani expressed doubts about the decision to pursue an appeal, calling it potentially unwise. Dharmani suggested that the administration should respect the High Court’s ruling and avoid further legal entanglements, positing that any re-interpretation of the CPS role could destabilize the legitimacy of legislative appointments.