NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it would consider the issue of tainted Ministers on merit after an amended petition was filed questioning their inclusion in the Union Cabinet.

At the last hearing, a Bench sought the assistance of Attorney-General Milon K. Banerjee on the maintainability of a writ petition by Manoj Narula.

On Monday when the Bench, comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.K. Balsubramanyan, took up the matter, Mr. Banerjee submitted that it was the Prime Minister's sole prerogative to choose his Council of Ministers and it was not amenable to judicial review.

"Germs of discordance"

To a question from the Bench whether a citizen was not entitled to expect a neat and clean government, Mr. Banerjee said probing the matter further would not be beneficial to conventions and parliamentary democracy. "My duty is to prevent even the germs of discordance coming between the judiciary and Parliament, both supreme in their own spheres."

The Bench wanted to know whether the selection of Ministers by the Prime Minister was a mere political question or a political question coupled with a constitutional right. "If you say that it is purely a political issue, then we will not entertain the petition."

Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati said the qualifications required for ministership were the same as those for membership of the House. It was totally within the domain of Parliament to add to or delete from the list of qualifications.

Amicus curiae Rakesh Dwivedi contended that the day was not far when a person facing trial for murder, dacoity and treason could become Prime Minister. "Would it then be said that the President was bound to accept the advice of the Prime Minister?" Ordinarily, the courts should not intervene in the selection of persons to the Council of Ministers but in the prevailing circumstances, it was better for them to settle the question.

Unsubstantiated allegations

Though the court wanted to know from the Government whether it could entertain the petition, it found certain unsubstantiated allegations. So it asked the petitioner to amend the petition within two weeks. As and when the amended application was filed, it would be considered on its merits. "We express no opinion now," the Bench said and adjourned the proceedings.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail