A State Legislature contains 300 Seats of MLAs. The Chief Minister recommended the appointment of 60 MLAs as Ministers. Can the Governor object to the number? If so, on what grounds?

Facts of the Case

• The State Legislative Assembly consists of 300 Members (MLAs).
• The Chief Minister recommends the appointment of 60 MLAs as Ministers in the Council of Ministers.
• The recommendation is placed before the Governor, who is constitutionally required to appoint Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister under Article 164(1).
• However, the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 introduced a ceiling on the size of the Council of Ministers at both Union and State levels.
• In this context, the Governor must decide whether the recommendation is within constitutional limits or excessive.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the appointment of 60 Ministers out of 300 MLAs violates the constitutional limit prescribed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment?
2. Whether the Governor has the authority to object to the formation of an oversized Council of Ministers?
3. Is the Governor bound to follow the advice of the Chief Minister in this matter, or does constitutional limitation override executive advice?

Legal Principles Covered

1. Article 163 and 164 of the Constitution of India
   • Article 164(1): The Governor appoints the Chief Minister and other Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister.
   • Article 163: The Governor acts on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in situations where discretion is permitted.
2. 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 – Article 164(1A)
   • Introduced a mandatory cap on the number of Ministers in a State.
   • The size of the Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly, subject to a minimum of 12 Ministers.
3. Application of the Provision in This Case
   • Total MLAs = 300
   • Maximum permissible Ministers = 15% of 300 = 45 Ministers
   • Recommendation made = 60 Ministers
   • Therefore, the recommendation violates Article 164(1A).
4. Governor’s Power to Object
   • The Governor is not exercising discretionary power but is upholding a constitutional mandate.
   • The Governor must refuse to appoint Ministers exceeding the constitutional limit because executive advice cannot override the Constitution.
5. Relevant Supporting Case Law
   • B. R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001): Governor must ensure that constitutional requirements are strictly followed while appointing Ministers.
   • S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Constitutional provisions must prevail over political considerations; constitutional morality is paramount.

Possible Judgment

The Governor can and must object to the appointment of 60 MLAs as Ministers.
The action is constitutionally impermissible because it violates Article 164(1A), which limits the Council of Ministers to 15% of the Legislative Assembly strength.

Thus, the Governor should advise the Chief Minister to reduce the number of recommended Ministers to a maximum of 45. The Governor’s objection does not amount to acting against ministerial advice but is a mandatory constitutional safeguard to uphold the 91st Constitutional Amendment and prevent unconstitutional expansion of the executive.

About lawgnan

Understand the extent of Parliament’s power to legislate on State List subjects when implementing international treaties or conventions under Article 253 of the Constitution. Learn how courts apply the pith and substance test, examine the bona fide nexus to international obligations, and ensure balance in Centre–State relations. Visit Lawgnan.in for detailed legal case studies, constitutional interpretations, and expert insights on treaty implementation laws, repugnancy under Article 254, and the Basic Structure safeguards that maintain India’s federal equilibrium. Deepen your understanding of constitutional law and legislative competence today.