HARSHARAN VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for special leave is directed against the order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 17th October, 1986, rejecting the petitioner's application in limine by a reasoned order under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of Shri Sita Ram Kesari as a Minister of State of the Central Cabinet though he was not a Member of either House of Parliament then. There is a delay of 11 days in the making of this application and the petitioner who has appeared in person has not applied for condonation of delay. The petitioner appeared in person to support the application and relied upon the written note filed by him which is already a part of the record. He also filed a printed book-let where reference to the point in issue has been indicated.

(2.) Shri Sita Ram Kesari has admittedly ceased to be a Minister and the issue is no more a live one. It is a well accepted practice that Courts do not undertake interpretation of the Constitution unless there be a live issue before them. The petitioner has indicated in his written note and reiterated the same during the oral submissions that for the last 25 years he has been raking up the same issue and no Court has ever examined the tenability of his contention on merits. Since there is a question of limitation condonation of which has to be considered after giving the petitioner an opportunity to make an application therefor, we wanted to be satisfied if there was on merit a point deserving consideration of this Court. We have, therefore, examined the tenability of the contention canvassed by the petitioner. As stated earlier, the High Court has by a reasoned order dismissed the writ petition in limine. Having heard the petitioner, we are inclined to agree that the High Court came to the correct conclusion. Two Articles of the Constitution and a brief reference to the relevant debate in the Constituent Assembly clearly indicate that the submission advanced by the petitioner has no merit. Article 75 makes provision for Central Ministers. Clause (5) thereof provides. :-

(3.) A brief reference to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly would throw enough light on the question. A member of the Constituent Assembly proposed an amendment to the following effect :-