Supreme Court Says Telangana Governor's MLC Nominations Will Be Subject To Outcome Of BRS Leaders' Petition
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 14) issued notice on a petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana seeking to prevent the Telangana Governor from nominating members of the State Legislative Council.While the Court declined to pass an order of status quo on the nomination of Member of Legislative Council (MLC), it clarified that...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 14) issued notice on a petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana seeking to prevent the Telangana Governor from nominating members of the State Legislative Council.
While the Court declined to pass an order of status quo on the nomination of Member of Legislative Council (MLC), it clarified that the nominations will be subject to the outcome of the petition.
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Balachandran Varale was hearing the petition challenging the Telangana High Court's judgment delivered on March 7.
Though the High Court quashed the Governor's rejection of the petitioners' names, the petitioners were aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to direct their nominations. Reportedly, the Governor is now processing the nominations proposed by the Congress government which came into power last December.
The Supreme Court today stayed the operation of the High Court's judgment as well. The petition will be heard after four weeks.
Arguments in the court
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal (appearing for Dasoju) said: "Very shocking. This is happening now all over. Then, Milords, the new appointments made also stand quashed. Now, they are trying to appoint the same people again. Therefore, we want a stay."
Justice Nath: "Let politicians come here [before the Supreme Court]. Issue notices returnable within 4 weeks."
Sibal interjecting, requested for a status quo order as well to which Justice Nath responded: "What status quo? They have not done anything."
Sibal replied: "Because they are appointing and otherwise, this will become infructuous. They will say there is more."
Justice Nath: "Attempt more...(inaudible).You will have more senior counsels against you. Let them come. What say?"
Sibal: "That is not the point. Stay is because Milord, they cannot appoint till this matter is decided because the original appointment is quashed and the subsequent appointment is quashed which is the January notification of those two Congress people. Now, they are trying to appointment them again. If they are appointed, the whole new chapter will open up. Why should that happen?"
Justice Nath: "Alright, then. On the insistence of Mr. Sibal, let there be status quo to be maintained, but by whom?"
Sibal: "The Governor, obviously Milords!"
Justice Nath: "We will stay the impugned order [of the high court] then."
Sibal: "But if you stay the impugned order then there is another problem because I have to be appointed."
Justice Nath: "So you are against their order? Then we will stay the order."
Sibal: "I am on something else. Please appreciate Milord...(interrupted)."
Justice Nath: "You are aggrieved by the order of the high court because the high court has given certain directions which it cannot, so we will stay the order to that extent."
Justice Nath dictates the order and says: "Till the final orders of this court, the impugned judgment of the high court shall remained stayed."
Sibal points out that the Governor will appoint somebody else. To this, Justice Nath says: "We cannot stop it".
Sibal replies: "No, you can because I should be appointed."
Justice Nath disagreed and said: "Is this your fundamental right to being appointed?"
Sibal answered in negative but added: "There is no fundamental right.."
Justice Nath said that the court will not stop a fresh nomination.
Sibal submitted that there is a case pending before the larger bench of the Supreme Court that the Governor has no role to play in the appointment if the State Cabinet recommends.
Referring to this, Sibal says: "I have to be appointed. If I succeed, I am entitled to a Mandamus."
However, the court said that they cannot grant such a relief sought by Sibal but modified their directions to "every nomination made in the meanwhile shall be subjected to the final outcome of this petition."
Background
Last year, the former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao led State Cabinet had recommended Dasoju, belonging to Scheduled Tribes, and another BRS leader Kurra Satyanarayana, from Backward Class community, to be nominated to the MLC. The Constitution of India under Article 171(5) 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".
However, the Governor rejected their nomination on September 19, 2023 on the grounds that the two were "politically aligned persons" and stated that the State Cabinet should avoid recommending such persons. On January 27, this year, the Governor accepted the appointing Prof. M. Kodanda Rama Reddy and Amer Ali Khan as the MLC on the recommendation of the Revanth Reddy-ruling Indian National Congress government. This notification was challenged before the Telangana High Court.
On January 30, the Telangana High Court passed interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo.
In March this year, the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court quashed the orders issued by the Governor in rejecting the candidature of Dasoju and Kurra as unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the State Cabinet in terms of the nomination of MLCs. It also set aside the notification of the Governor appointing Prof. Kodanda Rama and Amer as MLCs and directed that the Governor shall consider fresh nominations.
The high court had said: "The impugned orders dated 19.09.2023 [whereby Governor rejected Dasoju and Kurra's nomination] are quashed and the subsequent recommendation of Council of Ministers, dated 13.01.2024 [State Cabinet recommending Prof. Kodanda Rama Reddy and Amer Ali] in favour respondent Nos.4 and 5, Orders of the Governor, dated 27.01.2024 [Governor's accepted the nomination of Prof. Kodanda Rama Reddy and Amer Ali ]and Gazette Notifications, dated 27.01.2024 are quashed. A public law declaration is issued that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers while exercising powers under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. However, it is open for the Governor to examine the issues of eligibility or disqualification of a person recommended by the Council of Ministers, to the Legislative Council. In addition, the Governor has the power to remit the matter to the Council of Ministers either to furnish requisite documents/information or for re-consideration of the recommendation made by the Council of Ministers. The Governor is not answerable to the Court in view of Article 361 of the Constitution of India. No positive direction can be issued to the Governor. However, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court hopes and trusts that suitable action in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution shall be taken."
After the high court's judgment, reportedly the Government recommended the nomination of Prof. Kodandaram and Amer Ali again.
Since the court did not pass any directions on the nomination of Dasoju and Kurra and despite the order of the high court, the Governor is considering the nomination of Prof. Kodandaram and Amer Ali which is why the petitioners are before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the high court as well as the Governor's action.
Case details: Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar v. The Secretary to Her Excellency, The Hon'ble Government, State of Telangana, Diary No. 34897-2024
Click Here To Read/Download Order