Deputy Chief Minister post: Courts have consistently refused to interfere with the appellation

The Supreme Court’s 1990 order in former Deputy Prime Minister Devi Lal’s case continues to be followed by different High Courts in the country

The posts of Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Chief Minister have had their share of controversies since neither of them find a place anywhere in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have consistently refused to interfere with the appellations.

Article 74 under Chapter I of Part V of the Constitution states that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall act in accordance with such advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while performing his/her executive functions.

Article 75 makes it clear that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and that the other Ministers too shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should not exceed 15% of the total number of Lok Sabha members.

Further, Part V of the Constitution concludes with Article 78 which lists out the duties of the Prime Minister with respect to furnishing of information to the President regarding all decisions taken by the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation.

Similar provisions could be found under Chapter II of Part VI of the Constitution with respect to the role of the Governors and the Chief Ministers. Article 163 talks about the Council of Ministers in the States with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in exercise of his/her functions.

Also read | Of Deputy Chief Ministers and the Constitution

Article 164 makes it clear that the Chief Minister of every State shall be appointed by the Governor concerned and the other Ministers too shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Article also states the Ministers shall hold office “during the pleasure of the Governor.”

The Constitution (ninety-first amendment) Act, 2003 inserted proviso (1A) to Article 164 with effect from January 1, 2004 to state that the number of Ministers should not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly and that the number, including the Chief Minister, should not also be less than 12.

Chapter II of Part VI ends with Article 167 which lists out the duties of the Chief Minister with respect to communicating to the Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers in matters related to the administration of the affairs of the State and the proposals for legislation.

None of the provisions of the Constitution use the appellation Deputy Prime Minister or Deputy Chief Minister.

Also read: Explained | On the size of Council of Ministers

Devi Lal

In 1989, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the oath taken by Devi Lal (since dead) as the Deputy Prime Minister in Prime Minister V.P. Singh’s Cabinet.

The writ petitioner K.M. Sharma contended that the oath administered to Devi Lal as the Deputy Prime Minister was not in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution. The case was heard by a Bench comprising Justices Ranganath Misra and M.M. Punchi.

The then Attorney General Soli S. Sorabjee, representing the Centre, told the court that the Constitution prescribes just one format, containing the oath, which has to be read out and signed by all Ministers of the Union and that it does not prescribe a separate format even for the Prime Minister.

“Since the Prime Minister is also a member of the Council of Ministers, he/she takes the same oath as the other Ministers are required to take,” the A-G had said but added that the Prime Minister describes himself so while taking oath because such post had been recognised by the Constitution.

The court was also informed that the practice was in vogue since 1950. Further, stating that the oath of office could be divided into two parts with one being descriptive and the other being substantial, the A-G contended that any error/mistake in the descriptive part would not vitiate the oath.

Mr. Sorabjee told the court in categorical terms that the designation of Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister was only descriptive and that for all purposes he would be considered only as a Minister since there was no constitutional sanction for the post of Deputy Prime Minister as such.

The top court dismissed the writ petition on January 9, 1990 after observing: “In view of the clear statement made by the learned Attorney General that Respondent No. 1 (Devi Lal) is just a Minister like other members of the Council of Ministers though he has been described as Deputy Prime Minister but the description of him as Deputy Prime Minister does not confer on him any powers of the Prime Minister... we think the contention raised by the petitioner has no force.”

Gopinath Munde

In 1995, a writ petition was filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto against the then Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Gopinath Munde (since dead). The petitioner V. Devidas, a social worker, had argued that the oath taken by Mr. Munde as Deputy Chief Minister was not in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution and therefore, he must be removed from office.

The then Advocate General of Maharashtra C.J. Sawant told the court that though Mr. Munde had been described as Deputy Chief Minister during the swearing-in-ceremony held on March 14, 1995; such description would not confer upon him any power of the Chief Minister.

The A-G made it clear that the appellation Deputy Chief Minister was only descriptive and that for all purposes Mr. Munde would remain only to be a Minister like other members of the Council of Ministers irrespective of his designation. The High Court accepted his submissions.

Though the writ petitioner also argued that there was no constitutional sanction for the office of the Deputy Chief Minister and therefore a writ of quo warranto must be issued against Mr. Munde, the court said, it does not find merit in such a submission.

“The petitioner could not be permitted to raise a point of this kind when it is made clear that the oath administered to the Respondent No. 1 is in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution. In that case no writ of quo warranto will be issued to support a collateral attack on a person’s right to public office,” the Bombay High Court had concluded.

O. Panneerselvam

The issue is not without precedents even in Tamil Nadu since a writ of quo warranto was filed against All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) expelled leader O. Panneerselvam too. The case was filed before the Madras High Court when he got appointed as Deputy Chief Minister in the then Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami’s Cabinet in 2017.

Advocate V. Elangovan had sought the writ of quo warranto on the ground that the oath taken by Mr. Panneerselvam as Deputy Chief Minister was unconstitutional. However, on September 8, 2017, the then first Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar dismissed the writ petition after not finding any merits in the contention.

Authoring the verdict, the Chief Justice said a press release issued by the Raj Bhavan in August 2017 only states the Governor had accepted the Chief Minister’s recommendation to designate Mr. Panneerselvam as Deputy Chief Minister and it does not indicate that he had also been administered oath as Deputy Chief Minister.

“Be that as it may, even assuming that the second respondent (Mr. Panneerselvam) was administered oath as Deputy Chief Minister, that would make no difference” in view of the binding legal precedents, the Bench held.

Latest verdict

Even as latest as in February 2024, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers in various States. The petition was filed by the Public Political Party.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the case on February 12, 2024 with a very short order.

It read: ‘The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the appointment of the Deputy Chief Ministers in the States. His submission is that no such office is stipulated in the Constitution. A Deputy Chief Minister is, first and foremost, a Minister in the Government of the State. The appellation of a Deputy Chief Minister does not breach the constitutional position, namely, that a person who holds office of a Minister must, in any event, within a stipulated period, be the Member of the legislature in order to qualify for appointment as a Minister. In that view of the matter, the challenge which is being addressed before this court lacks in substance. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”

Published - September 29, 2024 12:14 pm IST