The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the 2017 appointments of Yogi Adityanath and Keshav Prasad Maurya, ruling that the Constitution does not restrict a sitting Member of Parliament from being appointed Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister of a state.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday (Dec 16) has rejected a public interest litigation questioning the legality of the appointments of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya made in March 2017. The court clarified that Indian constitutional law does not prevent a sitting Member of Parliament from being sworn in as the head of a state government or as a deputy chief minister.
The division bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti observed that the Constitution places no express or implied restriction on Members of Parliament taking ministerial office in a state. It further held that such appointments neither undermine the principle of separation of powers nor violate any constitutional convention.
Background of the PIL
The PIL was filed in 2017 by Sanjay Sharma, who questioned the legality of the appointments made on March 19, 2017, when both Yogi Adityanath and Keshav Prasad Maurya were sitting Members of Parliament and had not yet resigned from their respective Lok Sabha seats.
The petitioner contended that:
- Holding the office of Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister while continuing as a Member of Parliament amounted to holding two constitutional posts simultaneously
- Such appointments violated constitutional morality
- They imposed an unwarranted financial burden on the public exchequer
By the time the matter was finally decided, both leaders had:
- Completed their first term in 2020
- Been reappointed in 2022 following fresh assembly elections
The High Court observed that these subsequent appointments were not under challenge, and therefore, the prayers seeking quo warranto and declaration of vacancy of Lok Sabha seats had become infructuous.
The bench confined its examination to:
- Whether the 2017 appointments were unconstitutional
- Whether Section 3(a) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 was invalid
ALSO READ: CJI Gavai Calls Yogi Adityanath One of India’s Most Powerful and Hardworking CMs
Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, the court held that there is “nothing in the Constitution” that bars a Member of Parliament from being appointed as Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister of a state.
The bench relied on Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which expressly allows a person who is not a member of the state legislature to be appointed as a minister, provided that such person gets elected to the legislature within six months.
The court also rejected the argument that a Member of Parliament holds a constitutional office or an office of profit under the government.
Key observations included:
- MPs are elected representatives, not government employees
- They do not function at the pleasure of the executive
- Drawing salary and allowances does not create an employer-employee relationship
The bench relied on established Supreme Court precedents to support this conclusion.
On the issue of separation of powers, the court termed the petitioner’s argument as fundamentally flawed, noting that:
- Ministers are constitutionally required to be part of the legislature
- Accepting the petitioner’s reasoning would imply that no legislator could ever become a minister, which would be contrary to the constitutional scheme
The High Court upheld the validity of Section 3(a) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, which excludes ministers from the category of “office of profit” for parliamentary disqualification.
The bench pointed out that:
- Article 102 of the Constitution expressly empowers Parliament to declare certain offices as non-disqualifying
- The Explanation to Article 102 clearly states that a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit merely because they are a Union or State Minister
Since the constitutional explanation itself was not challenged, the court held that the attack on Section 3(a) of the 1959 Act was untenable.
Finding no merit in any of the surviving prayers, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the PIL and declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
Case Title:
Sanjay Sharma vs. Union of India Thru Secretary of Ministry personnel and Ors.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. – 10701 of 2017
READ JUDGMENT
