“Democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people” is one of the main tenets of democracy, but is it actually the case? It is ironic that the world’s largest democracy permits a person who was not chosen by popular vote to be named prime minister, a position that will control national policy and administration for at least the next five years.
In the case of sp anand vs hd deve gowda and Ors. (1997), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed the intricacy of this matter by ruling that the appointment of Shri H.D. Deve Gowda as the 11th Prime Minister of India was constitutional, even though he was not a member of either House of Parliament.
sp anand vs hd deve gowda Case Facts
- Because he was not a member of either House of Parliament, the current Prime Minister of India, who is also the second respondent in this case, was ineligible to be appointed as Prime Minister of India under the terms of the Indian Constitution.
- The petitioner said that the third respondent, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, the President of India at the time, had sworn him into the position of Prime Minister of India in violation of the constitution.
- As a result, the petitioner concluded that the third respondent had broken Indian Constitutional Articles 14, 21, and 75.
- The petitioner has raised the primary issue of whether a non-member of Parliament can serve as prime minister and has requested that the third respondent’s ruling be revoked under the article 32 of the indian constitution.
- The High Courts of Delhi and Calcutta also contested Shri H.D. Deve Gowda’s appointment; this Court has referenced their rulings.
sp anand vs hd deve gowda Issues
- Is it possible for someone who is not a member of either house of Parliament to be sworn in as India’s prime minister?
- Is it possible for someone who does not hold an elected position in one of the State Legislature’s houses to be chosen as a candidate for Minister of State?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- H.D. Deve Gowda’s ineligibility: The petitioner argued that the Prime Minister-designate, there was no member of either House of Parliament for Shri H.D. Deve Gowda. As a result, he contended that Deve Gowda was not qualified under the Constitution to be prime minister.
- Constitutional Article Violation: According to the petitioner, Deve Gowda’s appointment violated Articles 14, 21, and 75 of the Constitution. Article 21 provides the right to life and personal liberty; Article 75 deals with the nomination of Ministers; and article 14 of the indian constitution ensures equality before the law.
- Requesting Quashing of Appointment: Using a proper writ granted by the Court in accordance with Article 32, the petitioner sought the quashing of Deve Gowda’s appointment as Prime Minister.
- Impleading Other Respondents: In addition to contesting Deve Gowda’s appointment, the petitioner identified respondents 2, 4, and 5 in that order: the Union of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as well as the Leader of the Muslim League in the Lok Sabha.
Respondent:
- Precedent Cases: According to the respondents, the issue of whether or not a non-member of either House of Parliament can be appointed as a minister has already been covered by precedent cases. They identified other instances in which the interpretation of pertinent constitutional provisions proved that such nominations were lawful.
- Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions: The respondents argued that the Constitution itself allowed non-members to be chosen as Ministers in response to the petitioner’s allegations that Articles 14, 21, and 75 had been violated. They emphasized how crucial it was for the President to ask the Lok Sabha for confidence before naming a prime minister in order to guarantee democratic accountability.
- Collective Responsibility: As the entire Council of Ministers was collectively accountable to the House of the People, the respondents stressed that the principle of collective responsibility guaranteed that even a Prime Minister who was not a member of Parliament was going to be held accountable to the House.
- Deterring Frivolous Litigation: In public interest instances, the respondents voiced concerns about frivolous litigation. They contended that litigants shouldn’t rush to court without doing their due diligence and that such cases should be pursued with meticulous research and skill in constitutional law.
sp anand vs hd deve gowda Judgment
- The petitioner’s assertion that selecting a prime minister who is not a member of the House will gravely compromise the constitution or the interests of the country is difficult to believe.
- Unlike in England, our Constitution allows non-members to serve as Prime Minister or Chief Minister for a maximum of six months, irrespective of which house they belong to. This is not the English way of doing things.
- In most cases, the President will advise the nominee to seek a vote of confidence from the People’s House a few days after the nomination if he has any doubts.
- Due to these reasons, the Court denied the petition. A provisional injunction was issued, directing that proceedings that were already underway in other jurisdictions be conducted in light of this ruling, and forbidding their dismissal.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
