Constitution of India. “State Government. In our constitutional scheme, the Chief Minister of the State acts as a limb of the Government. Resignation addressed to Chief Minister is a resignation addressed to the State Government Karnataka High Court 17 July 2020.
Dr. M. Sudheendra Rao vs State of Karnataka and another. Writ Petition 7222 /2020, Decided on 17 July 2020, Justice S Krishna Dixit
Judgment link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/335497/1/WP7222-20-17-07-2020.pdf
Held: 10 (f) Mr.Ashok Haranahalli is more than justified in contending that, to understand the meaning of “State Government” employed in Section 5(4) of the 1974 Act and its functional aspects, one has to advert to the constitutional scheme arising inter alia from Articles 53, 74, 154, 163 & 361 of the Constitution; our Constitution although deals with the Union and the State Executive separately, the provisions relating thereto follow a common pattern; the Constitution divides the subject under four sub-heads viz., the Chief Executive, the Council of Ministers, the Law Officers and the Conduct of Business; the President is the chief executive of the Union of India and in him vests the executive power of the Union vide Articles 52 & 53; similarly, at the Provincial level, the Governor is the chief executive of the State and it’s executive power is vested in him vide Articles 153 & 154; Article 361 provides absolute immunity to both these high constitutional functionaries, for the exercise and performance of the powers & duties of their offices because neither the President nor the Governor exercises the executive functions individually or personally; the exercise of the executive power is a formally function of the President or the Governor as the case may be; in order to aid & advise the President in the exercise of his function, Article 74(1) provides for a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head; similarly, at the State level Article 163 provides for a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head; both these Articles relate to the conduct of business of the Government;
(g) It is pertinent to mention that the Executive power of the Union or the State is described by the Apex Court in Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549, ordinarily as being “the residue of Governmental functions that remain after legislative & judicial functions are taken away” and that they necessarily include the execution of the laws; Mr.H.M. Seervai in his “Constitutional Law of India”, 4th Edition, Volume 2 (Tripathi Publication) at Page 2042 states “…according to Dr.Ambedkar, ………….. the President of India was bound to accept the advice of his Ministers…” At pages 2034 & 2036 of the same Volume, Mr.Seervai has churned out the ratio decidendi of Apex Court decisions (a set of two) in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 vociferously pressed into service by Mr.Haranahalli; only the relevant ones to the case in hand are reproduced below:
“(a) Our Constitution generally embodies the Parliamentary or the Cabinet form of Govt. on the British model, both for the Union and the States.
(b) It is a fundamental principle of English constitutional law that the Sovereign does not act on his own responsibility but on the advice of his Ministers who accept responsibility and who command the confidence of the House of Commons. This principle of English constitutional law is embodied in our Constitution.
(c) It follows from the British form of Parliamentary or Cabinet Govt. that the President and the Governors are the formal or Constitutional heads of the Union and the States and they must act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except where a contrary provision is made by the Constitution.”
(h) Mr.Haranahalli heavily banks upon another recent decision in A.A. Padmanabhan Vs. State of Kerala, (2018) 4 SCC 537 wherein, the highest Court of the country having surveyed the growth of this branch of law has thus observed at para 16: “…Except the discretionary functions of the Governor, he does not exercise any executive functions individually or personally. When a Minister takes an action according to the Rules of Business, it is both in substance and in form the action of the Governor…” Both Mr.Dhyan Chinnappa and Mr.Ashok Haranahalli take the court through the provisions of Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 in support of their contention that the subject matter in question falls within the domain of the Chief Minister; item 15 in II Schedule to these Rules puts into the hands of the Chief Minister, the matters relating to appointment inter alia to the post of “Chairman and Members of any other Commission, Authority, Tribunal or Committees created by Statute”; the text & context of this provision which is generic in nature, the word “appointment” employed therein needs to be understood to include inter alia resignation of the appointee, as well; this apart, Rule 15(1) of 1977 Rules vests prerogative powers in the Chief Minister to take decisions even in respect of matters of business that normally belong to the domain of other Ministers as per the 1977 Rules; the said Rule reads:
“15. (1) The Chief Minister may call for papers from any Department and express his views and also tender advise on any matter coming within the purview of the business allocated to any Minister.”
(i)The text & context of the relevant constitutional provisions as interpreted in Samsher Singh supra, coupled with the provisions of the 1977 Rules show the prominent position assigned to the Chief Minister of the State; true it is, that the Chief Minister is not the manifestation of the State unlike the King in England; but he acts as a limb of the Government, is not legally disputable; therefore, the letter of resignation addressed to the “Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka” can be safely construed as the one addressed to the “State Government” in terms of section 5(4) of the 1974 Act; an argument to the contrary falls foul of the constitutional scheme as consistently articulated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions including Samsher Singh and A.A. Padmanabhan, supra.
Compiled by, S.Basavaraj, Daksha Legal, Bangalore
Daksha Legal 