Mere Conferment Of Ministerial Perks Doesn't Make Cabinet Rank Appointments 'Ministers' Under Article 164(1A): Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation filed to quash the appointment of several MLAs (Member of Legislative Assembly) and MLCs (Member of Legislative Council) to various Boards and Corporations with cabinet rank and pecuniary benefits similar to that of ministers. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that such appointees are not 'Ministers' within the meaning of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution. The court held that the 15 per cent ceiling on the number of MLAs/MLCs that can be included in the council of ministers, though rigid, does not extend to statutory body/board appointments. The court clarified that such appointees, even if they receive similar salary and cabinet rank perks as those of the ministers, are not to be counted as a part of the council of ministers per se.Suri Payala, the petitioner, had been working as an Engineer-in-Chief at KSPCB. In the writ petition, he had challenged the government notifications issued between June 2023 and January 2024, appointing over 40 legislators to cabinet rank positions. The petitioner claimed that approximately 159 persons were drawing ministerial remuneration which is far above the permissible limit of 33 Ministers. He argued that such appointments run contrary to the 'office of profit' rule. The Advocate General submitted that appointees of Corporation/ Board/ Commissions etc. receive their remuneration from the respective entities and not from the state government.“…The petitioner also seeks to raise other challenges, including as to the legal framework for payment of salaries and remuneration. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the challenge in this petition”, the court further added.In the order, the court has also placed reliance on apex court judgments in Dr. K. V. Vijayakumar v. State of Karnataka and Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka.“Merely because salary and other perquisites which are admissible to the post of Hon'ble Ministers are provided to the Chairpersons, they cannot become Hon'ble Ministers. The nature of the powers that they exercise and their duties are totally different. Therefore, while testing the compliance of Clause (1A) of Article 164 of the Constitution, only those Hon'ble Ministers will have to be taken into consideration who have been appointed under Article 164 of the Constitution”, the apex court had held in K.V Vijayakumar.Also, the Court had clarified in Umapathi. S that conferring 'cabinet status' on an appointee does not make that person a Minister under Article 164.“….the present petition is not entirely in public interest, but is also occasioned by the petitioner's aspirations for certain posts. It is settled that the petitioner, who seeks to file a public interest litigation, is bound to disclose his possible interest in the litigation….”, the court additionally noted, looking at the previous pleas made by the petitioner himself for his appointment as Chairman, Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, as well as CEO of E-Governance.Therefore, the court dismissed the petition filed by the KSPCB employee.Adv. Naman Venkdari M appeared for the petitioner. Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty and Adv. Niloufer Akbar, AGA appeared for the respondents.Case Title: Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Conferment Of Ministerial Perks Doesn't Make Cabinet Rank Appointments 'Ministers' Under Article 164(1A): Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

Tags