The Supreme Court today upheld the Central government’s nomination of three BJP members as MLAs in Puducherry Legislative Assembly..The Bench of Justices AK Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer dismissed the petition filed by Congress leader K Lakshminarayanan challenging the said nomination of the three BJP members, V Saminathan, KG Shankar and S Selvaganapathy to the Assembly..The Madras High Court had earlier upheld the same. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the Madras High Court decision in this regard and had directed the Speaker of the Puducherry Assembly to allow the MLAs to carry out their functions till this petition was decided by the Supreme Court..In deciding the question of whether the nominations for Legislative Assembly of Union Territory have to emanate from the Chief Minister, the Court answered in the negative and held,.“We do not find any established practice or convention to the fact that names for nominations to members of the Legislative Assembly has to emanate from the Chief Minister and can be made by the Central Government only after concurrence by Chief Minister.”.In November last year, the decision by the Speaker of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly barring the three members from being recognized as MLAs was communicated to them. Aggrieved by this communication, each of the three members had challenged this decision before the Madras High Court..The rationale behind the Speaker’s decision was that the nomination of the BJP members by the Centre was in contravention of the Constitution of India as well as the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963..A Division Bench of the Madras High Court heard all the three petitions together and decided to uphold the nomination and allowed the writ petitions filed by the BJP MLAs. Two appeals were filed against this judgment before the Supreme Court wherein Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid appeared for the appellants..Attorney General KK Venugopal appeared for the Central government and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar argued for the respondents..Sibal invoked federalism and the unique status accorded to Puducherry while also placing reliance on precedents when consultation with the elected government of the UT was held. Venugopal, however, argued that a Union Territory is a territory of the Union by definition and nomenclature and is the Centre’s property..Venugopal argued that according to Article 239 of the Constitution, the President administers a Union territory through an administrator in Lieutenant Governor and added that neither the Act nor the Constitution provides for consultation with the Legislative government for making nominations..Accepting the argument by Venugopal, the Court held that it is indeed the President that administers Union Territories and the Centre is empowered to nominate members to the Legislative Assembly..“We have, in the foregoing discussions, concluded that it is the Central Government, which is under Section 3(3) empowered to nominate members in the Legislative Assembly of Union territory. The procedure and manner of taking decision by Central Government has already been regulated by Rules of Business framed by President in exercise of power under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The Rules framed by President of India under Article 77(3) are applicable to all executive actions of the Central Government including Constitutional and Statutory functions.”.The Court also made it clear that the nominated members have the right to vote on all questions including with respect to budget and no-confidence against the government..“Section 12(1) provides that all questions at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting other than the Speaker or person acting as such. When the expression used is votes of members present, obviously the members of the Assembly both elected and nominated person has to be counted, we cannot while interpreting Section 12(1) exclude the nominated members.”.The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeals..Read Judgment:
The Supreme Court today upheld the Central government’s nomination of three BJP members as MLAs in Puducherry Legislative Assembly..The Bench of Justices AK Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer dismissed the petition filed by Congress leader K Lakshminarayanan challenging the said nomination of the three BJP members, V Saminathan, KG Shankar and S Selvaganapathy to the Assembly..The Madras High Court had earlier upheld the same. Subsequently, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the Madras High Court decision in this regard and had directed the Speaker of the Puducherry Assembly to allow the MLAs to carry out their functions till this petition was decided by the Supreme Court..In deciding the question of whether the nominations for Legislative Assembly of Union Territory have to emanate from the Chief Minister, the Court answered in the negative and held,.“We do not find any established practice or convention to the fact that names for nominations to members of the Legislative Assembly has to emanate from the Chief Minister and can be made by the Central Government only after concurrence by Chief Minister.”.In November last year, the decision by the Speaker of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly barring the three members from being recognized as MLAs was communicated to them. Aggrieved by this communication, each of the three members had challenged this decision before the Madras High Court..The rationale behind the Speaker’s decision was that the nomination of the BJP members by the Centre was in contravention of the Constitution of India as well as the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963..A Division Bench of the Madras High Court heard all the three petitions together and decided to uphold the nomination and allowed the writ petitions filed by the BJP MLAs. Two appeals were filed against this judgment before the Supreme Court wherein Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid appeared for the appellants..Attorney General KK Venugopal appeared for the Central government and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar argued for the respondents..Sibal invoked federalism and the unique status accorded to Puducherry while also placing reliance on precedents when consultation with the elected government of the UT was held. Venugopal, however, argued that a Union Territory is a territory of the Union by definition and nomenclature and is the Centre’s property..Venugopal argued that according to Article 239 of the Constitution, the President administers a Union territory through an administrator in Lieutenant Governor and added that neither the Act nor the Constitution provides for consultation with the Legislative government for making nominations..Accepting the argument by Venugopal, the Court held that it is indeed the President that administers Union Territories and the Centre is empowered to nominate members to the Legislative Assembly..“We have, in the foregoing discussions, concluded that it is the Central Government, which is under Section 3(3) empowered to nominate members in the Legislative Assembly of Union territory. The procedure and manner of taking decision by Central Government has already been regulated by Rules of Business framed by President in exercise of power under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The Rules framed by President of India under Article 77(3) are applicable to all executive actions of the Central Government including Constitutional and Statutory functions.”.The Court also made it clear that the nominated members have the right to vote on all questions including with respect to budget and no-confidence against the government..“Section 12(1) provides that all questions at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting other than the Speaker or person acting as such. When the expression used is votes of members present, obviously the members of the Assembly both elected and nominated person has to be counted, we cannot while interpreting Section 12(1) exclude the nominated members.”.The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeals..Read Judgment:
