No Constitutional Compulsion To Include Any Particular Community In Council Of Ministers: HC Rejects PIL For Including Women In Telangana Cabinet

It is within the domain of the Chief Minister to make his choice and advice the Governor as to who shall be appointed as the Minister in the Council of Ministers.

The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court recently rejected a plea seeking the appointment of women ministers in Telangana, observing that there is no constitutional compulsion as to inclusion or exclusion of any particular community of citizens in the Council of Ministers.

Dara Sreesailam, a lawyer, had filed public interest litigation ‘aggrieved’ with non-inclusion of woman in the state cabinet till date. She contended that permitting only male MLAs in to the cabinet as ministers by suppressing the Constitutional rights of SC/ST/BC/women MLAs amounts to practice of caste/gender discrimination.

She further submitted that non-mention of word ‘women’ in Articles 74, 75 and 164 of the Constitution of India does not amounts to prohibition of women in council of ministers, they have equal right part with men, and it is the primary obligation of the Prime Minister of India/Chief Minister of States to allow them in to their respective cabinets as ministers along with men to avoid caste/gender discrimination between male and female to avoid inequalities between mane and women to maintain social justice.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that there is no constitutional compulsion as to inclusion or exclusion of any particular community of citizens in the Council of Ministers.

The bench observed: “There is no provision in Article 164, except those relating to some of the States enumerated therein, which provides any constitutional compulsion as to inclusion of any particular community of citizens in the Council of Ministers. Article 164 has been made in such a way that there is no room for any exclusion either on the basis solely of gender, or on the basis of religion, caste or community. Similarly, it is within the domain of the Chief Minister to make his choice and advice the Governor as to who shall be appointed as the Minister in the Council of Ministers. The due procedure in relation to the advice of the Chief Minister having been made, the Governor is always within the jurisdiction to appoint the Ministers in the Council of Ministers.”

The bench then dismissed the PIL which had sought the following 12 reliefs:

• Declaring the Chief Minister’s act in non-reference of the women MLAs name to the Governor of Telangana 02-06-2014 till date to appoint them as ministers in his Cabinet is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 164 of the Constitution of India.


• Direct the CM to refer the names of any woman MLA from his TRS party by advising the Governor to appoint her as minister in his cabinet and pass such orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper.


• Pass an order that by giving a new definition that mere non-mention of word ‘women’ in Articles 74, 75 and 164 of the Constitution of India does not amount to prohibition of women in council of ministers, they have equal right part with men, it is the primary obligation of the Prime Minister of India/Chief Minister of States to allow them in to their respective cabinets as ministers along with men to avoid caste/gender discrimination between male and female to avoid inequalities and to maintain social justice.


• Pass an order that reference of MLAs names to Governor to appoint them as ministers is not the discretionary power of the Chief Minister, it is a constitutional obligation of the Chief Minister to give an opportunity to women MLAs in his cabinet along with male MLAs to avoid gender discrimination in the cabinet.


• Pass an order that Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India shall applies to Articles 74, 75 and Article 164 of the Constitution of India while appointing MPs/MLAs as ministers in their respective cabinets.


• Pass an order that the Chief Ministers shall follow the public policy adopted by previous Prime Ministers of India and previous Chief Ministers while appointing the ministers into their respective cabinets by referring the names of women MLAs along with male MLAs to appoint them as ministers to eliminate caste/gender discrimination in their governance though there is no specific word ‘women’ in Articles 74, 75 and 164 of the Constitution of India.


• Pass an order that permitting only male MLAs into the cabinet as ministers by suppressing the constitutional rights of SC/ST/BC/women MLAs amounts to practice of caste/gender discrimination by respondent No.1.


• Pass an order that the appointment of Reddy community MLAs i.e., more than all communities by suppressing SC/ST/BC women MLAs is unconstitutional, unethical, against public policy, creation of inequalities in the cabinet.


• Pass an order that the elected public representatives have been failing in understanding the importance of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India.


• Pass an order that keeping of mere silence by all TRS party MLAs in not allowing the SC/ST/Women MLAs in the cabinet amounts to providing support to the respondent No.1 in suppression of constitutional rights of the SC/ST/BC/Women MLAs.


• Pass an order that failure of all SC/ST MLAs, irrespective of their political parties, to put a letter jointly to Chief Minister to not permit the SC/ST/BC women MLAs into his cabinet is unconstitutional and kills the principles of democracy and Republic.


• Pass an order that a teaching and training programme should be required with eminent scholars/professors to all the elected SC/ST MLAs and MPs including women MLAs and MPs on Constitution and its spirit in introducing the Articles 330 and 332 irrespective of their political parties.


• Pass an order that the Chief Minister of Telangana enjoying his constitutional right guaranteed by Article 164 without interruption from his appointed day i.e., from dated: 02-06-2014 by suppressing the constitutional rights of SC/ST/BC people for years together in appointing them as Chairman for Scheduled Caste Corporation Chairman (6 months’ delay), as Chairman to State SC/ST Commission (3 years’ delay), prohibition of SC/ST/BC women MLAs (more than four years and continuing) into his cabinet as ministers amounts to unconstitutional, unethical, practice of corrupted administration.


• Pass an order that it is the obligation of the Advocate General to give good advice even if the Chief Minister does not ask him on occasions of discrimination against caste/race/community/religion/women at any point of time to protect the constitutional spirit.