Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Appointments Of Karnataka MLAs In Statutory Corporations, Allows To Seek Review In HC

However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek review before the High Court on the basis of a Karnataka government order dated October 7, 2020, which he contended had not been considered while dismissing the PIL.

“The petitioner's counsel apparently did not lay much emphasis on the contents of the said government order which might have some bearing on the issue raised by the petitioner. Consequently, we dispose of this special leave petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court”, the Court ordered. 

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a petition filed by an Engineer-in-Chief in the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board against a Karnataka High Court judgment dismissing his PIL against the appointment notifications.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar argued that the High Court had overlooked the October 7, 2020 government order. He submitted that the order provided that in the case of loss-making boards and corporations, the concerned administrative departments would provide financial assistance from their annual budget allocations.

He contended that this showed that expenditure connected with such appointments was ultimately borne from state budgetary resources and therefore attracted constitutional restrictions relating to expenditure from the Consolidated Fund.

Parmeshwar argued that government departments had no independent source of funds outside the Consolidated Fund and that the High Court had erred in proceeding on the basis that remuneration was not being paid by the State.

He contended that Article 164(1A), which limits the size of the Council of Ministers, could not be circumvented by conferring cabinet-rank status and ministerial benefits on legislators through executive orders.

He further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment striking down the Assam Parliamentary Secretaries law, and submitted that even the legislature could not create posts carrying the rank and status of ministers in a manner that effectively enlarged the Council of Ministers beyond constitutional limits. He argued that what could not be achieved legislatively could not be accomplished through executive action.

The bench pointed to findings recorded by the High Court regarding the petitioner's bona fides and noted that he had previously sought appointment to certain public positions. Chief Justice Kant remarked that if the petitioner wished to challenge the appointments, he ought to have gathered material regarding the powers exercised by the appointees and the functioning of the concerned corporations.

Parmeshwar responded that the petitioner had initially challenged individual appointments but withdrew those prayers before the High Court after concerns were expressed that the litigation appeared to target specific persons. He maintained that the challenge now was to the conferral of cabinet-rank status and associated benefits rather than to individual appointments.

After considering the submissions, the Court disposed of the SLP while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Karnataka High Court and point out how the October 7, 2020 government order allegedly constituted an attempt to overreach the constitutional mandate.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy. The Court also made it clear that its order should not be construed as recognising the petitioner's locus standi to maintain a public interest litigation on the issue. The Court further granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court if he is aggrieved by the order passed in the review petition.

Background

Before the High Court, Payala argued that around 159 persons were receiving ministerial remuneration despite the constitutional limit permitting only 33 ministers in Karnataka. He also contended that the appointments violated constitutional principles relating to offices of profit.

The State countered that remuneration was paid by the respective boards, corporations and commissions rather than by the State Government.

The Karnataka High Court held that such appointees were not ministers within the meaning of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the constitutional ceiling on the size of the Council of Ministers applies only to ministers appointed under Article 164 and does not extend to appointments made to statutory bodies, boards and corporations, even where the appointees receive salaries, allowances and perks similar to those available to ministers.

The High Court additionally questioned the petitioner's bona fides, observing that he had earlier sought appointment as Chairman or Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and as Chief Executive Officer of the State's e-governance initiative. Holding that the litigation was not entirely in public interest and was partly driven by the petitioner's own aspirations for public posts, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 18046/2026

Case Title – Suri Payala v. State of Karnataka