The crux of the PIL lies in its assertion that the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers by various state governments lacks constitutional backing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India, questioning the constitutional validity of appointing Deputy Chief Ministers in state governments. This move underscores a growing debate over the roles and powers within the Indian political framework, particularly concerning positions that are not explicitly defined in the Constitution of India.
The crux of the PIL lies in its assertion that the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers by various state governments lacks constitutional backing, as there is no provision under the Constitution of India, including Article 164, that sanctions such appointments.
Article 164 primarily deals with the appointment of Chief Ministers and their councils of ministers, without any mention of Deputy Chief Ministers. This absence of constitutional provision forms the basis of the challenge presented in the Supreme Court.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Mohan Lal Sharma, argues that the role of Deputy Chief Ministers does not directly contribute to the welfare of the state’s citizens. The PIL states,
“The Appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers has nothing to do with the citizens/public of the States, nor, any extra welfare is extended to the public of the States, if alleged Deputy Chief Ministers are appointed.”
This statement highlights the perceived redundancy and lack of public benefit associated with the position.
Furthermore, the petition raises concerns about the potential confusion and misleading implications of such appointments. It suggests that appointing Deputy Chief Ministers sets a “wrong and illegal” precedent by political parties, creating “imaginary portfolios.” The PIL emphasizes,
“Deputy Chief Ministers cannot take any independent decision of Chief Ministers, though they are projected and shown as equal to Chief Ministers.”
This observation points to the ambiguity and possible misinterpretation of the authority and responsibilities of Deputy Chief Ministers compared to Chief Ministers.
The plea also clarifies the operational role of Deputy Chief Ministers, stating,
“Needless to state that a Deputy Chief Minister acts only as a Cabinet Minister or like any other minister and nothing more than that.”
This delineation seeks to underscore the argument that the position does not entail any special powers or functions beyond those of a regular Cabinet minister.
In seeking redress, the PIL calls upon the Union government to address these “unconstitutional” appointments through the Governors of the states, who are responsible for administering the oath of office to Deputy Chief Ministers. This demand for action reflects a broader call for adherence to constitutional provisions and clarity in the governance structures at the state level.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, is tentatively scheduled to hear the plea on February 12. This hearing is anticipated with keen interest, as it could have significant implications for the political and administrative arrangements in various Indian states, potentially reshaping the understanding and implementation of constitutional roles within state governments.