'Frivolous': Rajasthan High Court Imposes 25K Cost On Plea Against Appointment Of Dy. Chief Ministers
In a PIL filed by a lawyer against the swearing-in of Diya Kumari and Prem Chand Bairwa as the Deputy Chief Ministers, Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000/- on the petitioner, citing the frivolous nature of the relief sought.The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta termed the case filed by Om Prakash Solanki as a...
In a PIL filed by a lawyer against the swearing-in of Diya Kumari and Prem Chand Bairwa as the Deputy Chief Ministers, Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000/- on the petitioner, citing the frivolous nature of the relief sought.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta termed the case filed by Om Prakash Solanki as a classic example of a frivolous petition filed to gain cheap publicity. The court strongly felt that the petition was filed without proper research or awareness about the settled proposition of law.
“…We are of the view that the pleadings made in this petition are blissfully vague and there is no specific averment in the petition that Respondent No. 5 & 6 had not taken any oath much less any averment that they had not taken oath as per the requirement of Schedule III (V) appended to the Constitution of India”, the bench sitting at Jaipur added in the order.
Before the High Court, the petitioner vehemently argued that there are no provisions for the appointment to the office of Deputy Chief Minister in the constitution. Taking an oath as the Deputy Chief Minister in itself is unconstitutional. The newly appointed ministers can't be allotted any work or facilities solely for that reason, and the oath taken by both of them is wholly contrary to the tenets of the constitution, argued the petitioner's counsel.
Additional Solicitor General R.D Rastogi, appearing for the Central Government, submitted that the issue has been vastly discussed and well settled by different courts in a multitude of decisions.
After examining the decisions in K.M. Sharma v. Devi Lal & Others, (1990) 1 SCC 438, Devidas S/o Venkatrao Pawar v. Shri Gopinath Mundhe and Others, AIR 1996 Bom 1 and Dr. Sekhar S. Iyer Versus Chief Secretary & Others (Writ Petition No. 23925 of 2018 (GM-RES) PIL), the High Court opined that Schedule III (V) is the prescribed form for administering oath to a Minister. Even if a Minister is described as the Deputy Chief minister, it would not vitiate the oath administered as per Schedule III(V), the substantial part of which demands the oath taker must bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The words that precede the said portion, such as words descriptive of the person taking the oath, do not vitiate the oath administered, the court concluded after reproducing pertinent excerpts from relevant judgments that suggest the same.
In the judicial precedents relied upon by the court, it has also been held that a Deputy Chief Minister will be a minister for all purposes since the designation does not constitutionally confer any additional powers upon him or any powers belonging to the Chief Minister of the state. The status of a Deputy Chief Minister effectively remains as that of a Minister.
“Taking into consideration the entirety of the matter and frivolity of the petition, we are inclined to impose cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner in the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee, Jaipur within a period of one month”, the court added while dismissing the matter.
Case Title: Om Prakash Solanki v. Special Secretary His Excellency Governor Of The State of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors.
Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20457/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 14