E-Paper
PIL challenging constitutionality of Shivakumar’s council of ministers dismissed
The court said the petition is premised on an erroneous ground that the number of ministers cannot be less than 12% of the total members of the legislature
Prefer HTon Google
The Karnataka high court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of chief minister DK Shivakumar’s newly formed council of ministers, and fined the petitioner ₹50,000, calling the plea a publicity stunt and a waste of judicial time.
“The present petition is premised on an erroneous ground that the number of ministers, including the chief minister, in a council of ministers cannot be less than 12% of the total members of the Karnataka legislature. A plain reading of the proviso to Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India states that the number of ministers, including the chief minister, in a state shall not be less than 12,” a bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha said.
Hubballi resident Mangalappa Hullikeri filed the PIL seeking the dissolution of the 14-member council of ministers sworn in on June 3, arguing it violated Article 164(1A) governing the size of state cabinets.
The court said that the petition rested on a complete misreading of Article 164(1A), which says that the total number of ministers, including the chief minister, shall not exceed 15% of the strength of the legislative assembly. It stipulates that the number of ministers shall not be less than 12.
The petitioner misread the number 12 as 12% and argued that since the Karnataka assembly has 224 members, the council of ministers should comprise at least 24 members and not more than 33 members. Karnataka’s council of ministers has 14 members, including Shivakumar and deputy chief minister G Parameshwara.
Hullikeri’s counsel, Hanumanth Kumar L, acknowledged that Article 164(1A) required the number of ministers to be not less than 12. Justice Bakhru then asked, “So, how many ministers have been sworn in?”
When the counsel replied that 14 ministers had taken the oath, the bench said, “14 is greater than 12 or lesser than 12? You yourself are saying it is 14 members. How can 14 be less than 12? What has the total strength of the assembly got to do with this proviso? The proviso says they shall not be less than 12. It does not say 12%. There is no per cent there. It is 12.”
The court directed Hullikeri to deposit ₹50,000 with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. It refused his counsel’s request to permit him to withdraw the plea. “...the present petition is essentially being filed to seek publicity and has resulted in an obvious and unjustifiable imposition on judicial time.”
