State Govt's De-Nomination Of Chairman Of Minorities Commission Before Completion Of Fixed Term Not Arbitrary: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Abdul Azeem, a former Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, questioning the government decision cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The petitioner is a nominee who is nominated under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 itself indicates that it is at the pleasure of the State. It is exercised and he is denominated. Such de-nomination of a nominee cannot be questioned on the ground that it is arbitrary.”

In the year 2019, the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission for a period of three years, in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994. On completion of the first tenure, an order comes to be passed continuing the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission for another term of three years, for it to come to an end on 15-10-2025.

After change of state government in 2023, on 22-05-2023 a tippani emerges from the office of the Chief Minister which is communicated by the Chief Secretary to all the Departments. The communication was that the nominations made by the earlier Government would have to be annulled. In furtherance of the aforesaid communication/tippani a Notification comes to be issued on 22-05-2023 by which the continued nomination of the petitioner/2nd tenure is cancelled.

The petitioner represented before the respondent/State on 24-05-2023 seeking to withdraw the said Notification. Owing to the representation, a Notification comes to be issued on 24-05-2023 withdrawing the Notification dated 22-05- 2023 whereby the notification which cancelled the nomination of the petitioner for the second tenure came to be withdrawn.

The petitioner between the dates 22-05-2023 and 24-05-2023 had submitted a representation 23-05-2023 seeking consideration of the said representation to complete the term as a Chairman for another 2 years and 5 months. When there was a delay in consideration of the said representation, he had knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition by filing it on 05-08-2023. This Court initially issued notice to the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, the Government issued a Notification on 15-12-2023 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission.

The petitioner argued that the appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed tenure of three years on certain terms and conditions. It was continued for another period of three years on the same terms and conditions. Therefore, it becomes an appointment with fixed tenure and the order which withdraws or cancels the nomination or appointment as the case would be, is arbitrary and a misuse of the power of pleasure that is available to the State to remove any person who is nominated, it was stated.

The government opposed the plea submitting that the nomination of the petitioner even if it is for a term, the nomination is in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act itself indicates that the Chairperson of the Commission will be functioning subject to the pleasure of the Government.

It was stated that the pleasure of the Government shall be that it would only be until further orders. He has been nominated and de-nominated now and no fault can be found with the order impugned cancelling the second tenure of the petitioner.

The bench referred to Section 4 (1) of the Act which reads thus: 4. Term of office and conditions of service of the Chairman and members.- (1) Subject to the pleasure of the Government, the Chairman and members of the 10 Commission shall hold office for a term of three years from the date they assume their offices.

It then said “Sub-section (1) of Section 4 clearly indicates that the Chairman or other members shall hold office for a term of three years subject to pleasure of the Government. Therefore, the statute itself recognizes the right of the Government to tinker with the nomination prior to its expiry as it is 16 subject to pleasure of the Government. There need not be any inference drawn whether it is a pleasure term or otherwise as the statute itself indicates that it is at the pleasure of the Government.”

Further, it observed that “Section 5 deals with disqualification for office of membership. The reason for such disqualification is found in clauses 63 (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 and if those clauses are to be invoked and the incumbent is to be removed, it is then a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be granted. The petitioner is not disqualified on any ground whatsoever. He has been de-nominated, and it is a de-nomination simpliciter exercising State's right under Section 4 of the Act. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on this score also does not merit any acceptance.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar for Advocate M.S.Mukarram for petitioner.

Advocate General K.Shashikiran Shetty a/w AAG Ismail Zabiulla & AGA Navya Shekhar for Respondents.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

Case Title: Abdul Azeem AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17396 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order