MANOJ NARULA versus UNION OF INDIA

MANOJ NARULA versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court held that it is not permissible to read into Articles 75(1) or 164(1) a judicially enforceable disqualification that would bar appointment of a person as a Minister merely because charges have been framed against him; adding such a stage of disqualification would amount to creating eligibility criteria not in the Constitution or statute and is a matter for Parliament. Nevertheless, the Court emphasised that it is a legitimate constitutional expectation that the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, in discharge of their trust and to uphold constitutional morality and good governance, should ordinarily avoid appointing persons against whom charges have been framed for heinous or...

Parties
Petitioner: Manoj Narula; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 289 of 2005 / Final Judgment and Disposal by Constitution Bench
Outcome
Writ petition disposed of
Legal Topics
Appointment of Ministers, Disqualification for Public Office, Criminalisation of Politics, Doctrine of Implied Limitation, Constitutional Morality, Good Governance, Representation of the People Act, 1951
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Electoral Law Administrative Law Public Law Appointment of Ministers Disqualification for Public Office Criminalisation of Politics +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manoj Narula

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 289 of 2005 / Final Judgment and Disposal by Constitution Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether persons with criminal antecedents or against whom charges have been framed can be appointed as Ministers under Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether this Court can read an implied limitation into Article 75(1) or Article 164(1) to disqualify persons at the stage of framing of charges
  3. 3 Whether the Court should frame guidelines for appointment of Ministers in respect of criminal antecedents or leave the matter to Parliament

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it is not permissible to read into Articles 75(1) or 164(1) a judicially enforceable disqualification that would bar appointment of a person as a Minister merely because charges have been framed against him; adding such a stage of disqualification would amount to creating eligibility criteria not in the Constitution or statute and is a matter for Parliament. Nevertheless, the Court emphasised that it is a legitimate constitutional expectation that the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, in discharge of their trust and to uphold constitutional morality and good governance, should ordinarily avoid appointing persons against whom charges have been framed for heinous or...

Court Disposition

Writ petition disposed of

Orders

  • Writ petition disposed of
  • No order as to costs