Deserves Serious Attention: Karnataka HC Issues Notice On PIL Against Conferment Of Cabinet Rank To 42 MLAs & Legislative Council Members

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun issued notice to the state government and directed it to file a detailed reply by March 18 and posted the matter for further hearing on March 27.

During the hearing, on going through the records and the averments the bench said “In the above view its prima facie transpires that even if the aspect that the violation of Article 164 (1A) was dealt in Umapathi S, as emphasised by Advocate General. The issues raised in this PIL does have the dimension alleged violation of Article 191, namely the respondents concerned have been holding the office of profit and in continuance in office violates constitutional mandate. Undoubtedly the entire issue deserves serious attention as much as it has a definite public interest element and democratic significance, under the constitution.”

Refusing to accept the contention raised by the State that petitioner who is employed as engineer in the State Pollution Control board and aspires to be in the Board and thus petition is not maintainable the court said, “We are aware that in PIL bona fides of the petitioner is a germane aspect. However, looking at the issue involved the court at this stage sees that the aspect pales into insignificance.”

Following which it said, “The issues arising as above bearing Constitutional and democratic importance, deserves to be fleshed out finally. It would require a definite response from the state government. Notice returnable on March 27.” The court clarified that all the questions are kept open to be agitated after filing of pleadings.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak appearing for the petitioner Suri Payala argued that “Extension of benefits to these respondents as holder of office equivalent to cabinet rank minister, amounts to conferring on them the status of cabinet rank itself.”

Referring to Article 164 (1A) and 161 of Constitution of India, it was submitted that it puts a cap on the total number of Minster, including the Chief Minister to be appointed in the Council of Ministers and such number shall not exceed 15 percent in the legislative assembly of that state.

By way of the impugned notification and appointing the respondents on different positions of boards when counted exceeds the membership of the Legislature of Assembly of Karnataka.

The plea seeks to declare the appointments to be illegal and unconstitutional on the grounds of violation of article 164 (1a) of the Constitution of India and on the basis that they constitute an office of profit as per the criteria laid down by the constitutional bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal. Further direct the respondents to immediately remove the appointees from their respective positions and withdraw all pecuniary benefits and facilities accorded to them in connection with these appointments.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the government submitted that similar issue had cropped up before the coordinate bench in case of Umapthi S vs State of Karnataka, where in the very argument sought to be canvased now was dealt with and decided. Further it was said “Respondents were assisting the CM and not functioning as ministers in literal sense, therefore provision of Articles was not applicable.”

Case Title: Suri Payala AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 3570/2025.