Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that “criminal law is continuously weaponised” against people in the democratic process, as the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking guidelines on appointing ministers facing criminal charges.
New Delhi: A public interest litigation (PIL) asking for guidelines that would require the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to weigh the criminal background of legislators before appointing them as ministers or allotting them important Cabinet portfolios was dismissed by the Supreme Court on Friday, November 6, 2026 [Petitioner v. Union of India (case title awaited)].
The plea was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The Bench dismissed it after an oral hearing; the remarks reported below were made during the hearing and are not part of a reasoned judgment.
Weaponised criminal law and a Chief Minister’s discretion
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petitioner’s argument rested on constitutional morality, which, he said, is not binding. He also questioned whether such a framework could work in practice:
“Criminal law is continuously weaponised against people who are in the democratic process, sometimes by their political opponents. In such a situation, would it not be left to the discretion of the Chief Minister to decide whether a particular criminal case is sufficiently embarrassing for the government to exclude that person from the Cabinet?”
He added that the Court would be entering difficult territory by framing such guidelines:
“We are conscious of the fact that criminal prosecutions may follow a change of regime. We would be wading into that area.”
A plea for parameters, not a new disqualification
Counsel for the petitioner made clear that the plea did not seek any new disqualification under Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which govern the appointment of Union and State ministers. The aim, he said, was only that the discretion exercised in choosing ministers and assigning portfolios be guided by standards of prudence.
“All that I am saying is that the exercise of discretion has to be reasonable. There have to be certain parameters governing that discretion.”
The petitioner relied on a 2025 analysis by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), under which 1,861 of 4,092 sitting MLAs analysed (45 percent) had declared criminal cases and 1,205 (29 percent) had declared serious criminal cases. Counsel argued that Parliament had not acted adequately despite the Supreme Court flagging the problem over a decade ago, and that a voter does not consent to a legislator with criminal antecedents becoming a Cabinet minister.
The petitioner maintained that the plea did not question the executive’s constitutional powers, only the reasonableness of their exercise. The Bench, however, dismissed the petition.
Why the order matters
The dismissal leaves the choice of ministers and portfolios with the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, without any judicially framed filter based on pending criminal cases. The Bench’s concern that criminal cases can be used against political rivals, and may follow a change in government, points to a reluctance to let a pending case, as opposed to a conviction, decide fitness for executive office. Any change on this front, on the Bench’s reasoning, lies with the political executive and Parliament rather than the courts.
Case Title: Petitioner v. Union of India (case title awaited)
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Result: PIL dismissed
