MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA

Judgment

[for himself, Lodha, CJI. And • Bobde, J.) 8 HELD:1. The Prime Minister has been regarded as the repository of constitutional trust. The use of the words "on the advice of the Prime Minister" in Article 75 of the Constitution cannot be all()wed to operate in a vacuum to lose their significance. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the Prime Minister's advice is binding on the President for the appointment of a person as a Minister to the Council of Ministers unless the said C person is disqualified under the Constitution to contest the election or under the Repr..esentation of the People Act, 1951. That is in the realm of disqualification. But, a pregnant one, the trust reposed in a high constitutional functionary like the Prime Minister under the Constitution D does not end there. That the Prime Minister would be giving apposite advice to the President is a legitimate constitutional expectation, for it is a paramount constitutional concern. In a controlled Constitution like ours, the Prime Minister is expected to act with E constitutional responsibility as a consequence of which the cherished values of democracy and established norms of good governance get condignly fructified. The framers of the Constitution left many a thing unwritten by reposing immense trust in the Prime Minister. The F scheme of the Constitution suggests that there has to be an emergence of constitutional governance which would gradually grow to give rise to constitutional renaissance. [Para 85) [1031-C-G]

#2. The Council of Ministers has the collective responsibility to sustain the integrity and purity of the constitutional structure. That is why the Prime Minister enjoys a great magnitude of constitutional power. Therefore, the responsibility is more, regard being had to the instillation of trust, a constitutional one. It is also G H MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA 967 expected that the Prime Minster should act in the interest A of the national polity of the nation-state. He has to bear in mind that unwarranted elements or persons who are facing charge in certain category of offences may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality or principles of good governance and eventually diminish B the constitutional trust. The prohibition cannot be brought in within the province of 'advice' but indubitably, the concepts, especially the constitutional trust, can be allowed to be perceived in the act of such advice. [Para SSA] [1031-H; 1032-A-C] C

#3. While interpreting Article 75(1) of the Constitution, definitely a disqualification cannot be added. However, it can always be legitimately expected, regard being had to ttie role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers and keeping in view the sanctity of oath he takes, the Prime D Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of E Ministers. This is what the Constitution suggests and that is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister. Rest has to be left to the wisdom of the Prime Minister. What has been said for the Prime Minister is wholly applicable to the Chief Minister, regard being had to the F language employed in Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India. [Paras 86, 87] [1032-D-G] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299: 1976 SCR 347; T.N. Seshan, CEC of India v. Union of India G and ors. (1995) 4 sec 611: 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 106; Ku/dip Nayar v. Union of India & Ors AIR 2006 SC 3127: 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1; People's Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and another (2013) 1 o sec 1: 2013 (12) SCR 283; Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. H 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 0 A Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 sec 405: 1978 (2) SCR 272; Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra AIR 1980 SC 1362: 1980 SCR 1302; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another (2002) 5 SCC 294: 2002 (3) SCR s 696; Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and others v. Union of India and others (1997) 4 SCC 306: 1997 (3) SCR 93; Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Advocate Supreme Court v. Union of India and others (1997) 6 SCC 1: 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 641; K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan AIR 2005 SC 688: 2005 (1) c SCR 296; Niranjan Hemchandra Sashitta/ and another v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642: 2013 (4) SCR 767; Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2014 AIR 2140; Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others (2013) 7 SCC 653; His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kera/a and another (1973) 4 SCC 225: 1973 (0) Suppl. SCR 1; Centre for.PIL and another v. Union of India and another (2011) 4 SCC 1: 2011 (4) SCR 445; N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and others (2009) 7 SCC 1: 2009 (7) SCR 668; lnderpreet E Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab (2006) 11 SCC 356: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772; Arun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 609; State of Punjab v. Sa/ii Sabhlok and others (2013) 5 SCC 1; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and another (2005) 8 sec 202: 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 77; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab F and another (1974) 2 sec 831: 1975 (1) SCR 814; B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and another (2001) 7 SCC 231: 2001 (3) SOppl. SCR 191; M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. and others (2004) 8 SCC 788: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 1020; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and another 1981 G Supp SCC 87: 1982 SCR 365; M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others (2006) 8 sec 212: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336; U.N.R. Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi (1971) 2 SCC 63: 1971 (0) Suppl. SCR 46; G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam and others (1972) 3 SCC 717: 1973 (1) H MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA 969 SCR 172; Shrikant v. Vasantrao and others (2006) 2 SCC A 682: 2006 (1) SCR 496; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699: 2004 (3) SCR 1148; Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294: 2005 (3) SCR 345; S. Ganesan v. Rama Ranghuraman (2011) 2 SCC 83: 2011 (1) SCR 27 State of B UP. v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324: 2011 (4) SCR 1176; Kai/ash Gour & ors. v. State of Assam (2012) 2 SCC 34: 2011 (16) SCR 318; Minerva Mills Ltd. And Others v. Union of India and Others (1980) 3 sec 625: 1981 (1) SCR 206; l.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 C SCC 1: 2007 (1) SCR 706; Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 232: 1987 (1) SCR 383; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284; Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 sec 241: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404; Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh through its D Principal Secretary and others (2010) 12 SCC 1: 2010 (7) SCR 585; R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and another v. State of T.N. and others (1994) 6 sec 632; Joginder Kumar v. State of UP. and others AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 (4) SCC 260; Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras, AIR E 1950 SC 124; A. Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur and others (2009) 15 SCC 351 2009 (11) SCR 727; Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 594: 2001 (2) SCR 118; M.J. Shivani and others v. State of Karnataka and others F (1995) 6 SCC 289; State of Maharashtra and others v. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation and others (2003) 9 SCC 731: 2003 (1) SCR 1112; UP. Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Sant Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 693: 2007 (12) SCR 1160; Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur G and others v. The State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549: 1955 SCR 225; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 268: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 and In re Art. 143, Constitution H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912) AIR 1951 SC 332 - referred to. Melbourne Corporation v. Commonwealth (1974) 74 CLR 31; Political Advertising Case (1992) 177 CLR 106; Australian National Airways Pty Ltd. v Commonwealth (1945) B 71 CLR 29; Lamshed v. Lake (1958) 99 CLR 132 and Payroll Tax Case (1971) 122 CLR 353, 401 - referred to. Constituent Assemby Debates, 1989: VII, 38; James Madison as Publius, Federalist 51 and Laurance H. Tribe, C The Invisible Constitution 29 (2008); H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, vo.I. 2, 4th Ed. Pg. 2060; Constitutional and Administrative Law, 2nd Ed. Pg 368- 370, David Polland, Neil Parpworth David Hughs; Constitutional & Administrative Law 5th Edition, pg 297- D 305, Hilaire Barnett; Nolan Report, Standards in Public Life, Cm 2850-1, 1995, Lodon HMSO, Chapter 3, para 4; and Constitutional Practice (Second Edition) (pg. 146- 148); The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status (fourth edition) by K.C. Wheare; The Law and the E Constitution by I. Jennings (5th Edition, ELBS: London, 1976) and Constitutional Law- A critical introduction {2nd edition, Butterworths: London, 2000) by I. Lovehead - referred to. Per Madan 8. Lokur, J. [Concurring] F HELD:1. Two substantive reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition. The first relief is for a declaration that the appointment of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as Ministers in the Government of India is unconstitutional. This is G based, inter alia, on the averment that these respondents have 'criminal antecedents' .As far as the first substantive relief is concerned, 'criminal background' and 'criminal antecedents' are extremely vague. [Paras 3, 4] [1033-C-D, E] the expressions H MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA 971

#2. The second substantive relief is for the framing of A possible guidelines for the appointment of a Minister in the Central or State Government. It is not clear who should frame the possible guidelines, perhaps this court. As far as this substantive relief is concerned, it is entirely for the appropriate Legislature to decide whether B guidelines are necessary, as prayed for, and the frame of such guidelines. No direction is required to be given on this subject. [Paras 5, 6] [1033-F-H]

#3. The offences and the sentence to be awarded for the purpose of disqualifying a person from being elected C to a Legislature are matters that Parliament may like to debate and consider, if at all it is felt necessary. Until then, one must trust the watchful eye of the people of the country that the elected representative of the people is worthy of being a legislator. Thereafter the wisdom of the D Prime Minister and Parliament must be trusted that the elected representative is worthy of being a Minister in the Central Government. It is for the electorate to ensure that suitable (not merely eligible) persons are elected to the Legislature and it is for the Legislature to enact or not E enact a more restrictive law. The burden of appointing a suitable person as a Minister in the Central Government lies entirely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and may eminently be left to his or her good sense. This is what our Constitution makers intended. [Paras 32, 34 and F 38] [1050-F-G; 1053-G; 1055-D] S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 126; B. R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and another (2001) 7 SCC 231: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 191; B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, G (2010) 6 SCC 331; State of Punjab v. Sa/ii Sabhlok and others (2013) 5 SCC 1; Municipal Committee, Patiala. v. Model Town Residents Association, (2007) 8 SCC 669; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parent of a student of Medical College, (1985) 3 SCC 169; V.K. Naswa v. Union of India, H 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A (2012) 2 sec 542; Gainda Ram v. MCD, (2010) 10 sec 715 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others (2013) 7 sec 653 - referred to. http :I/pa rl ia me ntofi n d ia. n ic .i n/lsldebatesl B vol11 p11.htm; http:l/parliamentofindia.nic.inllsldebatesl vol11p12.htm; and http:l/hansard.millbanksystems.coml written_answe rsl1994/ja nl251m in isters-u ns u ita bi I ity-fo r office#S6CV0236P0_ 19940125_CWA_ 172; Constituent Assemby Debates, 1989: VII; Public Law 1994, Aut, 431- C 4; and 244th report of the Law Commission of India on "Electoral disqualifications" - referred to. Per Kurian Joseph, J. [Concurring] HELD: No doubt, it is not for the court to issue any 0 direction to the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, as to the manner in which they should exercise their power while selecting the colleagues in the Council of Ministers. That is the constitutional prerogative of those functionaries who are called upon to preserve, E protect and defend the Constitution. But it is the prophetic duty of this Court to remind the key duty holders about their role in working of the Constitution. Hence, the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister ,of the State, who themselves have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to F discharge their duties faithfully and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically G referred to in Chapter Ill of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. [Para 12) [1062-E-G] Oxford English Dictionary; Concise Oxford English Dictionary; and Arthasastra, Chapter IX - The creation of H Councillors and Priests - referred to. MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA 973 Case Law Reference: In the judgment of Di~ak Misra, J. 1976 SCR 347 referred to 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 106 referred. to 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to 2013 (12) SCR 283 1978 (2) SCR 272 1980 SCR 1302 2002 (3) SCR 696 1997 (3) SCR 93 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 641 referred to 2005 (1) SCR 296 2013 (4) SCR 767 2014 AIR 2140 (2013) 1 sec 653 1973 (0) Suppl. SCR 1 2011 (4) SCR445 2009 (7) SCR 668 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 772 (2014) 2 sec 609 (2013) 5 sec 1 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 77 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to 1975 (1) SCR 814 referred to 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 191 referred to 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 1020 referred to 1982 SCR 365 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR336 1971 (0) Suppl. SCR 46 referred to referred to referred to 1973 (1) SCR 172 referred to A B c Para 1 Para 1 Para 1 Para 1 Para 3 Para 4 Para 5 Para 7 Para 8 Para 8 Para 13 D Para 14 Para 20 Para 22 Para 23 Para 23 Para 23 Para 23 Para 23 Para 23 Para 24 Para 24 Para 25 Para 26 Para 26 Para 33 Para 33 E F G H 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 9 S.C.R. A B c D 2006 (1) SCR496 2004 (3) SCR 1148 2005 (3) SCR 345 2011 (1) SCR27 2011 (4) SCR 1176 2011 (16) SCR 318 1981 (1) SCR 206 2007 (1) SCR 706 1987 (1) SCR 383 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284referred to 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 referred to 2010 (7) SCR 585 (1994) 6 sec 632 1994 (4) sec 260 1950 SCR 594 (1974) 74 CLR 31 E (1992) 177 CLR 106 (1945) 71 CLR 29 (1958) 99 CLR 132 (1971) 122 CLR 353 F 2009 (11) SCR 727 2001 (2) SCR 118 (1995) 6 sec 289 2003 (1) SCR1112 2007 (12) SCR 1160 G referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 33 Para 34 Para 34 Para 34 Para 34 Para 34 Para 49 Para 51 Para 54 Para 54 Para 54 Para 55 Para 58 Para 58 Para 58 Para 59 Para 59 Para 60 Para 60 Para 60 Para 66 Para 67 Para 68 Para 68 Para 68 Para 71 Para 73 1955 SCR 225 referred to 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659 referred to In the judgment of Madan B. Lokur1 J. H c2001) 1 sec 126 referred to Para 12 MANOJ NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA 975 referred to 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 191 referred to (201 O) 6 sec 331 (2013) 5 sec 1 (2001) 8 sec 669 (1985) 3 sec 169 (2012) 2 sec 542 (2010) 10 SCC 715 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to (2013) 7 SCC 653 referred to Para 14 A Para 19 Para 20 Para 27 Para 27 B Para 28 Para 29 Para 36 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. C 289 of 2005. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Paras Kuhad, R.K. Khanna, A.S.Gs., A. Mariarputham, Rakesh Dwivedi (AC.), K. Parasaran (A.C.), T.R. Andhyarujina D (A.C.), lrshad Ahmad, Manjit Singh, S.S. Shamshery, Suryanaryana Singh, A.A.Gs, Preetika Dwivedi, Sansriti Pathak, Ananya Pandey, Nikhil Sharma, Shridhar Pottaraju, Zoheb Hoosein, Ashwin Kumar, D.S., C.S. Bharadwaj, Soumik Ghosal, Anil Kumar Jha, Vijendra Mishra, Binay Kumar Das, V.P. Singh, Y.S. Chauhan, Jitin Chaturvedi, T.A. Khan, Abhik E C., D.L. Chidananda, Swati Vijay wargiya, Pravita Shekar, B.K. Prasad, Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mahra, R. Satish, Gopal Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Raman Yadav, Abhist Kumar, Vaibhav Yadav, Vivekta Singh, Nupur Chaudhary, Tarjit Singh Chikkara, F Vikas Sharma, Vinay Kuhar, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gopal Prasad, Anip Sachthey, Shagun Matta, Mohit Paul, Saakaar Sardana, Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Lal, S.S. Banthia, Vartika Sahay Walia, (for Corporate Law Group), Ranjan Mukherjee, C.D. Singh, Shweta Singh, Mohit Keswani, G Shreya Dubey, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf (for Arputham, Aruna & Co.), Hemantika Wahi, Puja Singh, Sandeep Singh, Amit Sharma, Harshvardhan Rather, A.P. Mayee, B.B. Singh, H 976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A Rachna Srivastava, Anitha Shenoy, G.V.S. Jagannadha Rao, Vikas G., Mayank Kshirsagar, Prabhat, Ranjan, Balaji Srinivasan, Shrishti, Govil, Vashali Dixit, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar Singh, P.V. Dinesh, Balasubramanian, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, P.V. Yogeswaran, Kuldip Singh, B Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, B. Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, Ranjan Mukherjee, Kamini Jaiswal, V.N. Raghupathy, D. Mahesh Babu, Amit K. Nain, Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amjit Maqbool, Aditya Jain, B. Ramakrishna Rao, T.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Pragati Neekhra for the Appearing C parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dipak Misra, J.[for himself, R.M. Lodha, C.J., and S.A. Bobde, J.] D A democratic polity, as understood in its quintessential purity, is conceptually abhorrent to corruption and, especially corruption at high places, and repulsive to the idea of criminalization of politics as it corrodes the legitimacy of the collective ethos, frustrates the hopes and aspirations of the E citizens and has the potentiality to obstruct, if not derail, the rule of law. Democracy, which has been best defined as the Government of the People, by the People and for the People, expects prevalence of genuine orderliness, positive propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine sanctity by constant F affirmance of constitutional morality which is the pillar stone of good governance. While dealing with the concept of democracy, the majority in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain1, stated that 'democracy' as an essential feature of the Constitution is unassailable. The said principle was reiterated in T.N. Seshan, CEC of India v. Union of India and ors. 2 • and Ku/dip Nayarv. Union of India & Ors3. It was pronounced with G