Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar vs State Of Kerala
Case No: (2023) 08 KL CK 0086
Decided on: 9th August 2023
CORAM: A. J. Desai, C. J.
Facts of the Case
In this case, the petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto, questioning the constitutional authority of the second respondent (probably the Chief Minister) to stay in office. There are two reasons for this comfort. First, it is claimed that the judgement has resulted in the discontinuation of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers, as required by Article 164(2) of the Indian Constitution. According to the petitioner, the Council of Ministers lost its constitutional power the minute this judgement was issued. Second, the Chief Minister allegedly summoned a meeting at which four Ministers nominated by the Communist Party of India abstained, expressing dissatisfaction with the Chief Minister’s leadership in light of the presence of another Minister. According to the petitioner, this is just another example of a lack of common accountability, making the Chief Minister a usurper of authority.
Article 164(2) of the Constitution states that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly, echoing the idea stated in Article 75(3) for the House of People at the national level. The petitioner contends that, as a policy-making body, the Council of Ministers is legally bound to retain collective responsibility, safeguarding democratic decision-making. The petitioner asserts that the 2nd respondent has lost the power to occupy the position of Chief Minister due to an alleged breakdown in collective responsibility, citing constitutional norms and conventions.
The Cabinet’s historical setting is briefly discussed, emphasising its growth as a policy-making body accountable to Parliament. The allusion to Sir Ivor Jennings emphasises the Cabinet’s highest guiding authority, despite the fact that its powers are drawn from collective responsibility rather than legislation. The issue appears to rest on the interpretation of constitutional concepts and traditions relating to collective responsibility, leading the petitioner to the conclusion that the Chief Minister is a usurper of power and should be subject to a writ of quo warranto.
Legal Provisions
The legal provision addressed in the case appears to be Article 164(2) of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the Council of Ministers’ joint accountability to the State Legislative Assembly. According to the petitioner, the Council of Ministers lost its constitutional capacity to stay in office as a result of the judgement proclaiming a termination of collective responsibility, as required by Article 164(2). Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the Chief Minister, as the leader of the government, usurped authority when four Ministers abstained from a cabinet meeting, expressing dissatisfaction with the Chief Minister’s leadership. This is regarded as a breach of the principle of collective responsibility, which strengthens the case for a writ of quo warranto.
Article 164(2) of the Indian Constitution established the notion that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the State Legislative Assembly. This section emphasises the constitutional framework that ensures crucial decisions are taken collaboratively and the cabinet functions as a coherent entity responsible to the legislative body. In essence, the petitioner is seeking a writ of quo warranto to declare the Chief Minister a usurper of power, calling into question the legal authority under which the Chief Minister continues to hold office following the judgement, as well as the incident involving the abstention of four Ministers, which allegedly violated the principle of collective responsibility mandated by Article 164(2) of the Constitution.
Issues
The legal problems in this case depend upon the constitutional principle of collective accountability enshrined in Article 164(2) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner claims that the actions of a Minister who challenged the decision of a subordinate administrative body, as well as the absence of four Ministers from a Council of Ministers meeting, resulted in a loss of collective accountability. The petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto, claiming that the Chief Minister, as the second respondent, has lost constitutional power to stay in office, and calling into question the Chief Minister’s term following the aforementioned incidents. The case involves constitutional interpretation and the application of rules controlling the Council of Ministers’ operation.
Courts analysis and decision
The decision of A.J. Desai, C.J., concerns a writ petition requesting the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against a state’s Chief Minister. The petitioner claims that the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers lost their constitutional power when a court ruled that collective responsibility had ended. The petitioner further claims that the Chief Minister usurped authority as a result of four Ministers’ absence from a cabinet meeting, thereby establishing a lack of collective accountability. The request for a writ of quo warranto is based on two grounds: first, the loss of constitutional power as a result of the judgement, and second, a vote of no confidence by four ministers who abstained from a cabinet meeting.
The judgement recognises the constitutional principles contained in Article 164(2) of the Indian Constitution, emphasising the Council of Ministers’ joint duty to the Legislative Assembly. It emphasises the cabinet’s democratic relevance as a policy-making body responsible to Parliament. The ruling draws on historical viewpoints on cabinet traditions, emphasising the role of the cabinet in decision-making and responsibility. Finally, the court dismisses the petition, citing the petitioner’s failure to demonstrate substance in the review application. It does, however, allow parties to submit legal issues before the Lok Ayukta, preserving the possibility of future legal proceedings.
In essence, the court’s decision emphasises the petitioner’s claims about the Chief Minister’s and Council of Ministers’ loss of constitutional power and lack of collective accountability. The rejection of the petition is based on the court’s evaluation of the review application’s lack of substance, however parties are still permitted to offer legal arguments before the Lok Ayukta.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
