Prime Minister/Chief Minister Does Not Have Disciplinary Control Over Other Ministers: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Prime Minister or the Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over the members of the Council of Ministers.

The Constitution Bench made this observation while holding that a statement made by a Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility.

In this regard, Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj had made a suggestion that the Prime Minister, in the case of a Minister of the Union of India and the Chief Minister, in the case of a Minister of the State should be allowed to take appropriate action, against the erring Minister. The Court rejected this suggestion as "fanciful".

"The Prime Minister or the Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over the members of the Council of Ministers. It is true that in practice, a strong Prime Minister or Chief Minister will be able to drop any Minister out of the Cabinet. But in a country like ours where there is a multi­party system and where coalition Governments are often formed, it is not possible at all times for a Prime Minister/Chief Minister to take the whip, whenever a statement is made by someone in the Council of Ministers...Governments which survive on wafer­thin majority (of which we have seen quite a bit), sometimes have individual Ministers who are strong enough to decide the very survival of such Governments. This problem is not unique to our country.", the majority judgment authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian reads.

The court further, referring to various authorities, noted that (i) that the concept of collective responsibility is essentially a political concept; (ii) that the collective responsibility is that of the Council of Ministers; and (iii) that such collective responsibility is to the House of the People/Legislative Assembly of the State. Generally, such responsibility correlates to (i) the decisions taken; and (ii) the acts of omission and commission done. It is not possible to extend this concept of collective responsibility to any and every statement orally made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative Assembly.

"As all the literature on the issue shows, collective responsibility is that of the Council of Ministers. Each individual Minister is responsible for the decisions taken collectively by the Council of Ministers. In other words, the flow of stream in collective responsibility is from the Council of Ministers to the individual Ministers. The flow is not on the reverse, namely, from the individual Ministers to the Council of Ministers"...

Case details

Kaushal Kishore vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 | WP (C) 113 OF 2016 | 3 Jan 2023 | Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna (partly dissenting)

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Headnotes

Statement Made By A Minister - Constitutional Tort - Collective Responsibility -  A statement made by a Minister even if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the Government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility - A mere statement made by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under PartIII of the Constitution, may not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights and become actionable as Constitutional tort. But if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort.

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 19(2) - Reasonable Restrictions - The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2), cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) upon any individual.

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 19, 21 - A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 21 - The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 whenever there is a threat to personal liberty, even by a non­State actor.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment