Can Governor Reject Nominations Made By CM And Council Of Ministers To Legislative Council? Telangana High Court To Analyze

The Telangana High Court will this Friday take up a plea concerning Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan's orders rejecting state government's nomination of Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana to the Legislative Council.

In July, the then Chief Minister K Chandra Shaker Rao and his cabinet passed a resolution nominating Sravan and Satyanrayana as Members of the Legislative Council of the State of Telangana. The Governor had rejected the nominations on 19-09-2023, challenging which the candidates had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.

The High Court Registry had raised objections regarding the maintainability of the Writ, owing to Article 361, which states that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the Governor. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti has however directed the Registry to number the matter and it will take up the preliminary issue of maintainability.

The Constitution of India provides that the State Government is empowered to nominate persons having special knowledge or practical experience in Literature, Science, Art, Cooperative Movement, and Social Services to fill the vacancies in the Legislative Council under the "Governor Quota".

The Governor while rejecting the recommendation cited lack of 'special achievements' accompanied by 'short tenure' in the respective fields and the absence of methodology adopted for consideration. The Governor advised the Council to consider 'non-politically affiliated people' as the same “will take away the opportunities to genuine people".

The petitioners vehemently contend that the decision taken by the Governor to reject the recommendations of the Council of Ministers was due to 'lack of personal satisfaction' and not due to any ambiguity in the recommendation itself, which is arbitrary therefore illegal.

'the order passed by the Hon'ble Governor is mala fide, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in excess of her jurisdiction…The Governor had rejected the petitioner's nomination not due to any ambiguity in resolution passed by the Government, but due to lack of personal satisfaction which is arbitrary, highhanded and tained with malice and therefore illegal and unconstitutional,” the plea states.

It is contended that without as much as seeking clarification from the Council of Ministers and in the absence of any adverse reports, the Governor has "high-handedly" rejected the recommendations.

It is also contended that the Governor has used 'Special Achievements' as a benchmark to gauge the capabilities of the petitioners whereas 'Special Achievements' finds no mention in Article 171(5) of the Constitution. Article 171(5) specifically stipulates that a person with 'special knowledge' or 'practical experience' is eligible to be nominated.

The petitioners contend it is peculiar that the Governor, without conducting any background checks or having any information regarding the nominated candidates, except the summary that was placed before her, has rejected the nominations.

“The said conclusion when bereft of any material before her office can only be recognized as...extraneous considerations without any good reasons and therefore is manifestly arbitrary and also indicates a malicious personal agenda of the Hon'ble Governor who was an ex-president of a rival central party and the same also calls for a judicial review of her actions," the plea states.

Adding to that, it is contended that the Governor has sought to review an official recommendation made by the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers i.e., the decision of the State Government, which is alien to the established and accepted way as the Constitution does not confer any powers to raise questions and satisfy herself on the methodology and considerations made by the Cabinet.

The petitioners stated that the actions of the Governor, in rejecting the recommendations violates the fundamental rights granted to the nominated candidates under Part III of the Constitution.

On the question of maintainability, the following arguments have been set out in the petition:

1. That the 'governor's quota' as prescribed under Article 171(5) which is similar to Article 80(3) is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Ratan Soli Luth vs. the State of Maharashtra has been relied upon to emphasize and reiterate that the nomination of MLCs is only an executive function of the Governor which must be carried out solely on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers.
2. The Governor is not an “all-prevailing super constitutional authority' but is bound by the aid and advice of the Council.
3. Article 163 of the Constitution stipulates that the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister is formulated to aid and advise the Governor, except where the Governor is required under a Constitutional mandate to use discretion. No such discretion finds way in Article 171(5) and the Governor is bound by the recommendation of the Council.
4. The doctrine of 'manifest-arbitrariness' has been relied upon, which states that all State actions whether executive or legislative including the appointment of MLCs should be reasonable and guided by sound legal or constitutional justification. (Ajay Hasia &Ors Vs. Khalis Mujib Sehravadi & Ors.)

Case no.: WP 47122 OF 2023 (filing number) & WP 47129 OF 2023

Counsel for petitioner: V Dyumani