Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu[39], the Nine-Judge Bench, while dealing with the doctrine of implied limitation, ruled thus:-

“96.....In the four different opinions six learned Judges came substantially to the same conclusion. These Judges read an implied limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Khanna, J. also opined that there was implied limitation in the shape of the basic structure doctrine that limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution but the learned Judge upheld the 29th Amendment and did not say, like the remaining six Judges, that the Twenty-ninth Amendment will have to be examined by a smaller Constitution Bench to find out whether the said amendment violated the basic structure theory or not. This gave rise to the argument that fundamental rights chapter is not part of basic structure. Khanna, J. however, does not so say in Kesavananda Bharati case.” From the aforesaid authorities, it is luminescent that the principle of implied limitation is attracted to the sphere of constitutional interpretation. The question that is required to be posed here is whether taking recourse to this principle of interpretation, this Court can read a categorical prohibition to the words contained in Article 75(1) of the Constitution so that the Prime Minister is constitutionally prohibited to give advice to the President in respect of a person for becoming a Minister of the Council of Ministers who is facing a criminal trial for a heinous and serious offence and charges have been framed against him by the trial Judge. Reading such an implied limitation as a prohibition would tantamount to adding a disqualification at a particular stage of the trial in relation of a person. This is neither expressly stated nor is impliedly discernible from the provision. The doctrine of implied limitation was applied to the amending power of the Constitution by the Parliament on the fundamental foundation that the identity of the original Constitution could not be amended by taking recourse to the plenary power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution. The essential feature or the basic structure of the doctrine was read into Article 368 to say that the identity or the framework of the Constitution cannot be destroyed. In Minerva Mills case, giving example, the Court held that by amendment, the Parliament cannot damage the democratic republican character as has been conceived in the Constitution. Though in Article 368 of the Constitution there was no express prohibition to amend the constitutional provisions, yet the Court in the aforesaid two cases ruled that certain features which are basic to the Constitution cannot be changed by way of amendment. The interpretative process pertained to the word “amendment”. Therefore, the concept of implied limitation was read into Article 368 to save the constitutional integrity and identity. In B.R. Kapur’s case, the Constitution Bench ruled that a non-legislator can be made a Chief Minister or Minister under Article 164(1) only if he has qualifications for membership of the Legislature prescribed under Article 173 and is not disqualified from the membership thereof by reason of the disqualifications set out in Article 191. Bharucha, J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the majority, opined that as the second respondent therein had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years, she was disqualified under Section 8(4) of the 1951 Act as the said respondent was disqualified to contest the election. In the said case, she was sworn in as the Chief Minister by the Governor. This Court was moved in by a writ of quo warranto that she was not eligible to hold the post of the Chief Minister. A submission was advanced that it was not open to the Court to read anything into Article 164, for a non-legislator could be sworn in as the Chief Minister, regardless of the qualifications or disqualifications. The Court placed reliance on Kesavananda Bharati’s case and Minerva Mills’ case and opined that if a non-legislator is made a Chief Minister under Article 164, then he must satisfy the qualification for membership of a legislator as prescribed under Article 173. A specific query was made by the Court that even when the person recommended, was, to the Governor’s knowledge, a non-citizen or under-age or lunatic or discharged insolvent, could he be appointed as a Chief Minister. It was urged that he/she could only be removed by the vote of no-confidence in the Legislature or at the next election. Discarding the same, the Court opined that acceptance of such a submission would invite disaster. The Court further ruled that when a person is not qualified to become a Member in view of Article 173, he cannot be appointed as a Chief Minister under Article 164(1). Be it noted, there was disqualification in the Constitution and under the 1951 Act to become a Member of the State Legislature, and hence, the Court, appreciating the text and context, read the disqualification into Article 164(1) of the Constitution.