Source: https://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/pro-bono-publico-writ-not-to-appoint-as-ministers-who-involved-in-serious-heinous-crimes-apex-court-held-that-no-doubt-it-is-not-for-the-court-to-issue-any-direction-to-the-prime-mi/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:06:47+00:00

Document:
proper exercise of duty by those who work it.
duty holders about their role in working the Constitution.
in the marrows of the collective is absolutely necessitous.
“A point of great public importance has been raised in this petition.
appointed as ministers in Central and State Governments.
heard by a Bench of five Judges.
since the Union of India is represented by learned Solicitor General.
weeks of service of notice.
choosing his masters for governing the country.
time of election, the voter can decide whether he should be re-elected.
law; and certain other information.
Criminalisation of politics is an anathema to the sacredness of democracy.
elements have developed an extensive network of contacts at many a sphere.
handled with extreme care and circumspection.
reservation from indulging in criminality to gain success at an election.
criminalization of politics. It proposes to provide for electoral reforms.
or till the date of quashing of charge or acquittal, whichever is earlier.
with certitude, creates a dent in the marrows of the nation.
India, the nation stood as a silent witness to corruption at high places.
Investigation & Anr., the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M.
allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.
has acted as the formidable enemy of the nation.
Members of Parliament and that of the State Legislature.
six years since his release.
before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in Lily Thomas v.
section (4) of Section 8 of the Act.
citizenry interest, communal harmony, and prevalence of good governance.
have Ministers in the Council of Ministers with criminal antecedents.
for the said purpose in the Third Schedule and, therefore, submits Mr.
Singh v. State of Punjab and another and B. R. Kapur v. State of T.N.
Constitution and which was a part of the Constituent Assembly Debates, Mr.
Barnett (5th Edn.) and “Constitutional Practice”.
seeks to achieve. Learned counsel has placed reliance on S.P. Gupta v.
election is rendered void and the seat of such a member is vacated. Mr.
offence or even if he is facing prosecution for a serious offence.
constitutional prohibition or a statutory bar.
the principles of statutory interpretation.
functionary like the Prime Minister.
the parliamentary system prevalent in our country under the Constitution.
For the aforesaid purpose, he has placed reliance on the decision in U.N.R.
State of U.P. v. Naresh and Kailash Gour & ors. v. State of Assam.
as a Minister by the Prime Minister.
Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.
of members of the House of the People.
which he is declared elected, whichever is earlier.
set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
Council of Ministers for the Union of India.
exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.
Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court.
Legislative Assembly of the State.
for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
of the individual would always subsist in the welfare state.
constitutional laws permit implications to be drawn where necessary.
is well to bear in mind some of the basic principles of interpretation.
essential feature of the Constitution.
structure or framework of the Constitution.
committed to your care, for you know best the needs of your generation.
power into an unlimited one.
limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Khanna, J.
the disqualification into Article 164(1) of the Constitution.
sacrosanctity of the office and the oath prescribed under the Constitution.
employed in other provisions of the Constitution.
T.N. and others, right to privacy has been inferred from Article 21.
speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas.
cohesively, for that will be in the domain of substantive legitimacy.
purpose of interpreting constitutional provision in an expansive manner.
the Constitution. The Court cannot re-write a constitutional provision.
not incorporated in the concept of voting by necessary implication.
and serious offences including corruption cases under the criminal law.
constitutional morality, good governance and constitutional trust.
enormous dynamism. It is a Constitution made for a progressive society.
Constitution can live and grow on the bedrock of constitutional morality.
cultivated. We must realize that our people are yet to learn it.
when there is global economy, the question of faith is very important.
disqualification of a convicted person becoming a Minister, Dr. B.R.
real executive powers are vested in the Ministers or the Cabinet.
certain exceptions with which we are really presently not concerned with.
to be envisaged in every high constitutional functionary.
the election or under the 1951 Act, as has been held in B.R. Kapur’s case.
trust, can be allowed to be perceived in the act of such advice.
the language employed in Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Andhyarjina and Mr. Parasaran, learned senior counsel.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
Dipak Misra, I find it necessary to express my view on the issues raised.
‘criminal background’ and ‘criminal antecedents’ are extremely vague.
be given on this subject.
mutatis mutandis in the State Government.
“There are only two regrets which I must share with the honourable Members.
10. Hopefully, Parliament may take action on the views expressed by Dr.
Rajendra Prasad, the first President of our Republic.
14. An implied limitation in the Constitution was also read in B. R.
him in this regard cannot be called in question.
with regard to the appointment of an unelected person as a Minister.
19. Implied limitations to the Constitution were also read in B.P.
which can only be for valid reasons.
appointed a Minister in the Central Government.
that does not entitle anyone to brand him or her a criminal.
Minister in the Central Government.
be found in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
about this, in the form of framing some guidelines?
be regulated by the present schemes framed by NDMC and MCD up to 30-6-2011.
dispute redressal mechanisms provided in the schemes.
the Legislature with the general public holding a watching brief upon them.
criminalisation of politics and maintain probity in elections.
of India on “Electoral Disqualifications” presented in February, 2014.
pending, which increased to 30% in the 2009 elections.
sitting MLAs with pending cases, with again about half being serious cases.
pending including 14 cases related to murder.
not enact a more restrictive law.
read implied limitations in the Constitution.
41. This sentiment was echoed in the equally memorable words of Dr.
even if you add a little more milk, don’t reduce even a bit of sugar!
it will be accused of as numb conscience.
be. The executive power extends to the respective legislative competence.
without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
duties as Minister and that too, without any fear or favour?
jurisprudence, a person is presumed to be innocent until he is convicted.
called upon to face trial, on the court framing charges?
court in the process. Is there not a cloud on his innocence at that stage?
because of the alleged criminal antecedents, until acquitted.
and guided by such unwritten yet constitutional principles as well.
1976) in his Chapter “Conventions” at 247.
backward classes or any other work.
from such date as the President may by public notification appoint.
period cease to be a Minister.
disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.
sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court.
Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954).
delivered by a Bench of two learned Judges.
Street Vending) Bill was eventually passed and notified as an Act in 2014.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.