"Have Taken Effective Steps For Early Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MP/MLAs": UP Govt. Submits Before Allahabad High Court
The Uttar Pradesh Government has submitted before the Allahabad High Court that it has taken effective steps have been taken for early disposal of criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was hearing the instant writ petition filed seeking the following reliefs: Direct...
The Uttar Pradesh Government has submitted before the Allahabad High Court that it has taken effective steps have been taken for early disposal of criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was hearing the instant writ petition filed seeking the following reliefs:
- Direct the State of UP to consider the desirability of continuing Ministers (mentioned in the annexures) in the council of Ministers keeping in view the Constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister/Chief Minister as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Manoj Narula.
- In case of failure on the part of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister to act in accordance with the constitutional expectation from him, the matter may be put up to the Hon'ble President/Governor for considering withdrawal of his pleasure under Article 75 (2)/164(1) of the Constitution.
To this, the Uttar Pradesh Government submitted that the list of persons against whom removal had been sought from the council of ministers on the basis of pendency of criminal cases are no more Ministers.
It may be noted that in Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India; JT 2014 (9) SC 591, a 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with the following question:
Whether persons with criminal backgrounds and antecedents or those accused of heinous crimes were fit to be appointed as Ministers in Central and State Governments.
Recognizing the limitations of the powers of the Court in matters of appointment of Ministers, it was held that the judiciary could not read a disqualification not contemplated by the statute into Article 75 (1).
The Court had left the appointment of Ministers with a criminal past to the discretion of the Prime Minister, however, it had recorded that it can always be legitimately expected that the Prime Minister, while delivering on the Constitutional expectations, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a minister of the council of ministers.
Justice Kurian Joseph had remarked:
"Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State, who themselves have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties faithfully and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951."
Read Order