Anon-legislator was appointed as a minister in state cabinet. He could continue as such only for six months, as he could not get elected either as MLA or MLC during such time. After a week, he was again appointed as a minister in the same cabinet even though he was still a non-legislator. The second appointment was challenged as unconstitutional. Decide.

Facts of the Case

A person who was not a member of the State Legislature was appointed as a Minister in the State Cabinet. Under the Constitution, a non-legislator appointed as a minister must become an MLA or MLC within six months, failing which he cannot continue as minister. Since he failed to get elected within six months, his ministerial position ended automatically.

However, after a short interval of one week, the same person was again appointed as Minister, even though he was still not a member of either House of the Legislature. This second appointment was challenged as being unconstitutional.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a non-legislator can be re-appointed repeatedly as Minister without being elected to the Legislature.
2. Whether such re-appointment violates Article 164(4) of the Constitution.
3. Whether such practice defeats the constitutional requirement of democratic accountability.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Article 164(1)

• The Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor and other ministers are appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister.

B. Article 164(4)

• A non-legislator may be appointed as Minister, but he must become a member of the Legislature within six months, otherwise he ceases to be a Minister.

C. Constitutional Purpose

• Ministers must be responsible to the Legislature.
• A non-legislator minister is temporary and meant only for emergency/exceptional situations.

D. Case Law

1. S. R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (2001)
   • The Supreme Court held:
     • Re-appointment of a non-legislator as Minister after the expiry of six months is unconstitutional.
     • Article 164(4) cannot be used repeatedly to bypass the requirement of democratic accountability.
   • The Court emphasized that allowing repeated appointments would defeat the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

Possible Judgment

The second appointment is unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not allow repeated re-appointments of a non-legislator as minister without election. This would amount to circumventing Article 164(4) and would destroy the principle of responsible government, where Ministers must answer to the Legislature.

Therefore:

• The second appointment of the non-legislator as Minister is invalid.
• He cannot continue as Minister unless he is elected as MLA or MLC.

Conclusion:
The re-appointment violates the Constitution, particularly Article 164(4) and the principles of parliamentary democracy, and is therefore void.

About lawgnan

Explore the constitutional validity of reappointing a non-legislator as a minister under Article 164(4) at Lawgnan.in. Understand how the Supreme Court in S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab (2001) ruled that repeated reappointments without election violate the principle of democratic accountability. Discover the constitutional mandate that ministers must be responsible to the legislature and how bypassing this rule undermines parliamentary democracy. Visit Lawgnan.in for expert analysis, simplified legal case summaries, and detailed explanations of key constitutional provisions shaping governance and legislative responsibility in India.