Karnataka HC dismisses PIL against appointment of political secretaries, advisers to CM Siddaramaiah with cabinet rank

He referred to Article 164 (1a), which placed an upper limit on the number of ministers in the council of ministers in a state, and said these appointments breached this upper limit. The respondents’ counsel argued that this Article could not be invoked as none of them was appointed as a minister.

The court observed that the clause’s text read, “The total number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of Ministers in a State shall not exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of that State.”

The bench noted, “The above text is as clear as gangetic waters. It is nobody’s case that the private respondents have been appointed as ministers. If the private respondents were appointed as ministers, there could have been scope for the invocation of subject provision of the Article. Merely because a Cabinet Status is conferred on a particular appointee, that per se does not make him a minister within the meaning of Article 164. These respondents are appointed to assist the chief minister/ministers and they are not functioning as the ministers in the literal sense.”

The bench dismissed the petition and concluded, “Despite vociferous submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show which Rule of law has been violated by virtue of impugned appointments. In the absence of breach of law, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.”