The Hindu : Front Page : Government abides by legal advice on swearing-in of Ministers

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Sep 07, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Government abides by legal advice on swearing-in of Ministers

N. Rahul

Experts take two scenarios into consideration while making suggestion

HYDERABAD: Wide-ranging consultations were held with legal experts like Attorney General Ghulam E. Vahanvati and his predecessor K. Parasaran before the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh recommended that “it would be the right thing” for all 34 Ministers of the Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy Cabinet to take the oath of office if they were to continue.

Advocate General D.V. Sitaram Murthy made this recommendation to Chief Secretary P. Ramakanth Reddy late on Saturday night after two days of hectic parleys with former Lok Sabha Secretary General and an expert on constitutional law Subhash C. Kashyap besides Mr. Vahanvati, Mr. Parasaran and Advocate General of Maharashtra Ravi Kadam.

Right thing

At the height of the controversy over whether the Cabinet should be sworn in at all or there was no need for it, the legal experts believed that the swearing-in would indeed be the right thing to do though there were no consistent conventions in the event of the death or resignation of Prime Ministers or Chief Ministers in harness.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s Council of Ministers was continued by his successor Gulzarilal Nanda without a fresh swearing-in when the former died. Similarly, Brahmananda Reddy continued with the Cabinet of Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy when the latter resigned. However, Rajiv Gandhi’s appointment as Prime Minister was followed by the swearing-in of his Cabinet after a few days and so was the case when Ashok Chavan took over as Maharashtra Chief Minister recently.

Argument on analogy

The legal experts looked at two scenarios in taking a view whether or not the Council of Ministers stood dissolved after YSR’s death. One, they discussed that the term of the Council would extend till a new one was constituted as the Governor only appointed the Chief Minister. There was no requirement for the swearing-in as it was already under oath and could continue to function. This was endorsed by the Supreme Court in a judgement in 1971.

Second, they discussed that the Council was necessarily to be sworn in under Article 164 (3) of the Constitution as the Chief Minister holds office till resignation or death. In the present case, when Mr. Rosaiah submitted a letter to the Governor to continue the old team, they based their argument on analogy that the Governor appoints the Council on the advice of the Chief Minister. Then, Mr. Rosaiah’s letter had to be considered as an advice to the Governor to appoint his Council of Ministers which required a fresh oath, Mr. Sitaram Murthy told The Hindu.

Accordingly, Mr. Rosaiah held consultations with the Chief Secretary on Sunday morning and requested the Governor at 11 a.m. to administer the oath to the old team.

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

Front Page