The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that people facing criminal charges cannot be barred from becoming Ministers in State and Central Government, but it advised the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to be circumspect while choosing people charged with heinous offences to be part of their Council of Ministers.
“In a democracy, people never intend to be governed by persons who have criminal antecedents,” said a five-judge Constitution Bench while deciding a PIl filed by one Manoj Narula in 2005.
The Supreme Court (SC) got assistance of three eminent lawyers, TR Andhyarujina, K Parasaran and Rakesh Dwivedi, to decide whether Article 75(1), dealing with “advice” of Prime Minister to President to appoint Union Ministers, must have a provision to exclude persons charged with serious or heinous offences.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice RM lodha, Justices Dipak Misra, Sharad A Bobde, Madan B lokur and Kurian Joseph, held that such an interpretation was impermissible.
The judgement said: “When there is no disqualification for a person against whom charges have been framed in respect of heinous or serious offences or offences relating to corruption to contest the election, by interpretative process, it is difficult to read the prohibition into Article 75(1) or into Article 164(1) to the powers of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister in such a manner.”
However, at the same time, it added: “The repose of faith in the Prime Minister by the entire nation under the Constitution has expectations of good governance which is carried on by Ministers of his choice.”
“Acting under this trust, the Prime Minister is expected to bear in mind that unwarranted elements or persons who are facing charge in certain category of offences may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality or principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust.”
To ensure this is averted, the SC added that the role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers must take into account the sanctity of oath he takes.
“The Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a part of the Council of Ministers.”
The SC left it to the Prime Minister’s wisdom to ensure fulfilment of this Constitutional expectation. The decision of the SC was unanimous although Justice Dipak Misra wrote the leading judgement for him, CJI lodha and Justice Bobde. Two separate orders supporting the verdict were penned by Justices lokur and Joseph.
The judges noted that at the time the Constitution was framed, the complexion of political arena was very different and the trust reposed in Prime Minister sanguine. With time, the entrenchment of corruption at all levels became a reality with criminalization of politics being one of its facets.
Justice lokur supported this fact with figures derived from a law Commission report as recently as in February 2014 which submitted that in the current lok Sabha, 30 per cent or 162 sitting MPs have criminal cases pending against them, of which about half have serious criminal cases. In 2004, this figure stood at 24 per cent.
The situation was no different in States. Almost 31 per cent or 1,258 out of 4,032 sitting MlAs had pending criminal cases against them, with about half facing serious cases. Uttar Pradesh had 47 per cent MlAs with criminal cases against them.
Justice Joseph aptly summed up the case by suggesting: “Will any reasonably prudent master leave the keys of his chest with a servant whose integrity is doubtedIJ” When a person of doubtful integrity is not made a judge or a civil servant, the judge said here was a case of “questioned integrity” involving persons charged of criminal cases and offences of moral turpitude.
Matter of choice
The apex court advised the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to be circumspect while choosing people charged with serious and heinous offences to be part of their Council of Ministers
‘In a democracy, people never intend to be governed by persons who have criminal antecedents,’ said a five-judge Constitution Bench while deciding a PIl filed by one Manoj Narula in 2005
The judges noted that at the time the Constitution was framed, the complexion of political arena was very different and the trust reposed in Prime Minister sanguine
With time, the entrenchment of corruption at all levels became a reality with criminalisation of politics being one of its facets
‘The Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a part of the Council of Ministers,’ the Bench said