Telangana High Court
Dara Sreesailam, vs K. Chandra Sekharrao, Chief Minister Of ... on 7 August, 2018
Author: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, V Ramasubramanian
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
+ WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.205 of 2018
% Dated: 07.08.2018
# DaraSreesailam
... Petitioner
VERSUS
$ Sri K.Chandra Sekhar Rao,
Chief Minister of Telangana,
Secretariat, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad, Telangana,
And others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners: Party-in-person
^ Counsel for the respondents : Additional Advocate General
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.205 of 2018
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) This Writ Petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking the following reliefs:
"1) It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by declaring the respondent No.1's act in non-reference of the women MLAs name to the Governor of Telangana from date:02-06-2014 to till date to appoint them as ministers in his Cabinet is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violate of Article 14,15,16,21 and 164 of Constitution of India unethical, practice of caste/gender discrimination against Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes women MLAs by misusing his power, practice of corrupted administration, against public policy which adopted by ExPrime Ministers of India and present Prime Minister of India by direct the Respondent No.1 to refer the names of any women MLA from his T.R.S Party by advising the Governor to appoint as ministers in his cabinet and pass such other order or orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper.
2) Pass an order that by giving a new definition that mere non mention of word "women" in Articles 74, 75 and 164 of the Constitution of India does not amounts to prohibition of women in council of ministers, they have equal right part with men, it is the primary obligation of the Prime Minister of India/Chief Minister of States to allow them in to their respective cabinets as ministers along with men to avoid Caste/Gender discrimination between male and female to avoid inequalities between mane and women to maintain social justice.
3) Pass an order that reference of MLAs names to Governor to appoint them as ministers is not discretion power of the Chief Minister, it is a constitutional obligation of the Chief Minister to give an opportunity to women MLAs in his cabinet along with male MLAs to avoid gender discrimination in the cabinet.
4) Pass an order that Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India shall applies to Articles 74, 75 and Article 164 of the Constitution of India while appoint the MPs/MLAs as ministers in their respective cabinets.
5) Pass an order that, the Chief Ministers shall to follow the public policy adopted by previous Hon'ble Prime Ministers of India and Previous Chief Ministers of States while appointing the ministers in to their respective cabinets by referring the names of women MLAs along with male MLAs to appoint them as ministers in to their respective cabinets 3 to eliminate the caste/gender discrimination in their governance though there is no specific word "women" in Articles 74, 75 and 164 of the Constitution of India.
6) Pass an order that, permitting only male MLAs in to the cabinet of respondent No.1 as ministers by suppressing the Constitutional rights of SC/ST/BC/women MLAs amounts to practice of caste/gender discrimination by respondent No.1.
7) Pass an order that, appoint of 6 Reddy community MLAs i.e. more than all communities by suppressing the SC/ST/BC women MLAs is unconstitutional, unethical, against public policy, creation of inequalities in the cabinet.
8) Pass an order that the elected public representatives has been failing in understood the importance of the Articles 330 and 332 of Constitution of India.
9) Pass an order that, keeping of mere silence by all T.R.S party MLAs in not allowing the SC/ST/Women MLAs in the cabinet amounts to providing support to the respondent No.1 in suppression of constitutional rights of the SC/ST/BC/Women MLAs.
10) Pass an order that, failure of all SC/ST MLAs irrespective of their political parties to put a letter jointly to Chief Minister i.e. respondent No.1 to permit the SC/ST/BC women MLAs in to his cabinet is unconstitutional and leads to kills the principles of democracy and Republic.
11) Pass an order that, a teaching and training programme should be required with eminent scholars/professors to all the elected SC/ST MLAs and MPs including women MLAs and MPs on Constitution and its spirit in introducing the Articles 330 and 332 irrespective of their political parties.
12) Pass an order that, the Chief Minister of Telangana enjoying his constitutional right guaranteed by article 164 without interruption from his appointed day i.e. from dated:
02-06-2014 by suppressing the constitutional rights of SC/ST/BC people for years together in appointing them as Chairman for Scheduled Caste Corporation Chairman (Six months delay), as Chairman to State SC/ST Commission (3½ years delay), prohibition of SC/ST/BC women MLAs (more than four years and continuing) in to his cabinet as ministers amounts to unconstitutional, unethical, practice of corrupted administration.
13) Pass an order that, it is the obligation of the Advocate General to give good advises even the respondent No.1 did not ask him in the occasions of committing discrimination against the caste/race/community/religion/women at any point of time to protect the constitutional spirit..."
2. The following interim reliefs are sought for:
"1) It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No.1 to refer any woman MLA name from Scheduled Caste Community, any woman 4 MLAs name from Scheduled Tribe Community, any woman MLA from Backward Community to Governor to appoint them as ministers in his cabinet to give respect to the Constitutional spirit, to give respect to the SC/ST/BC women community, pending disposal of the above main Writ Petition (PIL) or orders other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
2) It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Senior Council as amicus-Curie to assist the Hon'ble Court with his experience in giving the new definitions to the articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 74, 75, 164, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India elaborately and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
3) It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order by stay the dissolve of assembly up to five years of time which the respondent No.1 intending to dissolve the same without valid reasons or orders other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
3. The substance of the pleadings and the arguments advanced by the petitioner appearing in person is that there is a conscious exclusion of women from the Council of Ministers in the Government of Telangana. That plea is enlarged to say that this indirectly amounts to exclusion of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste women from being members of the Cabinet.
4. The petitioner referred to different aspects of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Articles 74 and 75 of the Constitution of India to argue that in terms of Article 164 of the Constitution, there is a constitutional obligation in terms of constitutional principles to ensure representation of women and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe women in the Cabinet. He points out the instances where public men, including the Prime Minister of India, had acted in such a way that in public domain they held out the importance of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Class women. The petitioner made reference to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and other luminaries who were involved in the making of the Constitution to 5 point out that the basic vision is to ensure that there is equality obtained by synchronizing the participation of different communities giving push to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class communities, particularly the women belonging to that sector.
5. Article 163 of the Constitution deals with the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor. Article 164 states that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. There is no provision in Article 164, except those relating to some of the States enumerated therein, which provides any constitutional compulsion as to inclusion of any particular community of citizens in the Council of Ministers. Article 164 has been made in such a way that there is no room for any exclusion either on the basis solely of gender, or on the basis of religion, caste or community. Similarly, it is within the domain of the Chief Minister to make his choice and advice the Governor as to who shall be appointed as the Minister in the Council of Ministers. The due procedure in relation to the advice of the Chief Minister having been made, the Governor is always within the jurisdiction to appoint the Ministers in the Council of Ministers. That is not a matter which would be justiciable in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution unless the particular person so included is disqualified to hold such office in terms of the Constitution and the Laws.
6. While the petitioner argued that the constitutional vision is to push forward the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes communities, in particular, the women folks thereof, we are of the view that it would not be within judicial domain to take 6 cognizance of any such proposition, having regard to the limits of judicial review in relation to matters falling under Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution of India.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition fails.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ _______________________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J 07.08.2018 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
vs