We don’t see that ‘Parliamentary Secretary’ is anathema to the scheme of the Indian Constitution, the bench stated.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld appointment of 11 participants of the Chhattisgarh State Legislative Assembly MLAs as parliamentary secretaries to assistant other ministers, regardless that it clarified that they can’t discharge any serve as as member of Council of Ministers.
In the general public hobby litigations and different writ petitions filed difficult those appointments, it was once steered that appointments lead to infraction of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India and such appointments are the results of colourable workout of energy to avoid the restrictive covenant contained in that provision of the Constitution.
Observing that that ‘Parliamentary Secretary’ isn’t anathema to the scheme of the Indian Constitution, the bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta stated the availability for Parliamentary Secretary isn’t a brand new thought and it’s subject of apply that ministers are given beef up of parliamentary secretaries to help in control of departments.
The bench referred to the judgment in Bimolangshu Roy (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Assam & Another and noticed that within the stated case, the apex court docket was once coping with a statute which contained a legislative declaration that the parliamentary secretaries needs to be of the rank and standing of a Minister of the state.
The court docket stated: “In the case in hand, the Parliamentary Secretaries who’re a few of the Respondents don’t seem to be proven to be having rank or standing of a Minister of the State or the authority to workout powers or discharge purposes and carry out tasks of a Minister. Unlike the provisions of Section 7 of the Assam Act which was once underneath problem sooner than the Apex Court, there is not any provision underneath which the Parliamentary Secretaries within the State of Chhattisgarh, who’re a few of the Respondents herein, can be entitled to wage and allowances as are admissible to a Minister. The phrases of the notification underneath which they’re running as Parliamentary Secretaries, after being administered oath of secrecy, don’t equate them with any of the constitutional government in Chapter II of Part VI of the Constitution. They also are no longer posted with any authority to hold out any constitutional or statutory serve as. Their responsibility is most effective to help the Minister to whom every of them have been required to help relating to the impugned notification”.
Repelling the problem, the court docket stated on this case, the appointees don’t seem to be Ministers and can’t be handled as Ministers for the aim of the phrases ‘Minister’ or ‘Council of Ministers’ in Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution or for the aim of the word “total number of Ministers” in Article 164(1A).
Read the Judgment Here