MLAs' Spouses, Relatives 'Not Indispensable' For Swearing-In, Presence Not A Necessity Though It Is A Proud Moment: Kerala High Court
“In normal circumstances, it is expected that Swearing-in Ceremony would take place with more number of participants, but, taking note of the statistics of cases, ..we have to consider...Whether all those persons invited are required to be present for the performance of the ceremony…”
Faced with PIL petitions challenging the Kerala government's decision to organise a swearing-in ceremony with more than 500 persons in attendance, the Court was required to answer this primary question – "Whether all the invitees needed to be present for the performance of the ceremony…"The Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Shaji P Chaly was hearing a petition filed...
Faced with PIL petitions challenging the Kerala government's decision to organise a swearing-in ceremony with more than 500 persons in attendance, the Court was required to answer this primary question – "Whether all the invitees needed to be present for the performance of the ceremony…"
The Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Shaji P Chaly was hearing a petition filed by Chikitsasaneethi against the decision allowing more than 500 persons at the swearing-in.
While the Court took the view that it was for the political party/-ies to decide whether the presence of its/their elected MLA was required at the swearing-in, the presence of spouses/relatives was "not indispensable", in view of the Covid surge in the state.
"We are unable to understand as to why the spouses or relatives of each of the MLAs are required to be present in the ceremony and when they are not, indispensable, either for the performance of the ceremony or for witnessing. Considering the present COVID-19 Pandemic situation, velocity and vigour of the virus, Test Positivity Rate in various Districts, uncontrolled rise in the death, etc., we are of the view that such persons ought not to have been included in the list of participants", the Court said.
The Court went on to state,
"At this juncture, we categorically observe that there is no necessity for the spouses of the MLAs to be present in the Swearing-in Ceremony. At the same time, it may be a proud moment, for the spouses or the relative of the designated Ministers to be present in the ceremony."
Refusing the State Attorney's submission that the writ petition "was politically motivated", the Court noted there certainly was "a public interest involved".
However, the Court refused to set-aside the Order, instead imposing the following restrictions.
- Strict adherence with Covid protocols pronounced through notifications, guidelines, circulars issued on May 6, 20201 and May 14 (Lockdown Guidelines) while conducting the Swearing-in Ceremony.
- Spouses and relatives of all the MLAs, except the designated Ministers are not required to participate in the Swearing-in Ceremony. The ceremony can be viewed from the residence of the respective MLAs.
- Government officials required for the performance/participation in the ceremony alone shall be permitted.
Additionally, the Bench asked the State Government to consider -
- whether all MLAs are required to be present in the Swearing-in Ceremony.
- whether all the special invitees and the members of the State Committee of the political parties are required to be present, in view of the pandemic. This direction was issued taking note of the fact that special invitees (apart from Judges, Secretaries to the Government up to the level of Principal Secretaries, Police officials up to the level of Additional Director General of Police, Senior Law Officers, Chief Secretary) had not been designated as yet.