The Supreme Court has rightly said it can’t issue directives to the prime minister or a chief minister on who ought to be kept out of the council of ministers, and that it is clearly the prerogative of the executive. Any observation to the contrary could well have been read as judicial overreach. However, the five-member Constitution bench that gave the ruling in a PIL, which sought a court directive forbidding legislators chargesheeted in criminal or corruption cases from being appointed as ministers, observed that constitutional morality expected the PM and CMs to keep “tainted” MPs and MLAs out of their teams. While the bench refused to interpret the law in favour of an outright ban on “tainted” ministers, it has suggested that being chargesheeted alone should be reason not to be considered for a ministerial post. The bench’s advice, of course, is not binding on the executive. But now, the latter would surely come under pressure to keep out chargesheeted legislators during ministry formation.
The apex court’s intent is, of course, laudable. Elections have indeed become a playing field for big money and muscle power. The increasing criminalisation of politics is a cause for concern and state and society must work together to end it. That said, there ought to be caution against instituting extreme and excessive measures or setting unreasonable “moral” standards in the name of cleansing public and political life.
