M.A. KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Public Interest Litigation whereby the petitioner has claimed that he is a Law Graduate having knowledge of Constitutional Law and he seeks to endeavour to curb any constitutional anomaly. He has stated that in the T.V. news bulletin dated 16.4.98, he saw the Prime Minister administering oath to respondent No. 2 Shri Pramod Mahajan as a political adviser to the Prime Minister and to respondent No. 3, Shri Jaswantsingh, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission. This, according to him, is illegal. It is pointed out that both the respondents No. 2 and 3 lost in the Parliamentary Election, but respondent No. 2 has been appointed as political adviser to the Prime Minister and respondent No. 3 as Vice Chairman, Planning Commission and they have been administered oath which according to the petitioner, cannot be administered by the Prime Minister under Art. 75(4) of the Constitution; it can only be done by the President. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Public Interest Litigation for declaring the administration of oath illegal and void and consequent by setting aside of the appointment of both the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that under Art. 75(4) of the Constitution, President alone can administer oath to a Cabinet Minister. Therefore, the oath administered to respondents 2 and 3 is null and void. It is also prayed that cabinet status to both the respondents 2 and 3 should be set aside. Oath can be administered by the President to a Cabinet Minister. The question is whether respondents 2 and 3 are Cabinet Ministers or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the paper cutting of Nav Bharat dated 17.4.98 and submitted that both the respondents have been treated as Cabinet Ministers and, therefore, oath ought to have been administered by the President. The contention of the learned counsel is bereft of substance. Both these respondents have not been appointed as Cabinet Ministers, but they have been given the status of Cabinet Ministers. There is a vast difference between a Cabinet Minister and giving the status of a Cabinet Minister. In order to become a Cabinet Minister, one has to be a member of either House of Parliament within six months, to become such a member. In the present case, both the respondents are not members of Parliament and they are not appointed as Cabinet Ministers. Therefore, oath administered by the Prime Minister was not the oath as is required to be administered by the President under Art. 75(4) of the Constitution. Since both these incumbents are not appointed as Cabinet Ministers, but they are only holding the status of Cabinet Ministers, therefore, they were not required to be administered oath by President under Art. 75(4) of the Constitution. Simply because they have been administered oath which is being administered to a Cabinet Minister as mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Constitution, by that they do not become Cabinet Ministers. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that because they have been administered oath which is normally administered to a Cabinet Minister renders their appointments null and void has no substance as they do not become Cabinet Ministers and their oath so administered would not be null and void. The contention of learned counsel has no merit and same is overruled.