Creation of Parliamentary Secretaries by the State Governments has invited Public Interest Litigation elsewhere challenging legalities of such appointments. The Supreme Court while considering the issue as of public importance and requiring interpretation of statutes has admitted appeal in regards to the state of Himachal Pradesh to examine and decide the issue once and for all. In the matter of facts, it is the prerogative of the Chief Minister to induct many ministers as may require prior to the enforcement of the Ninety First Amended Constitution. However, having realized the impact and burden of huge expenditure for many jumbo size ministries in the country, the parliament with obvious reasons wanted to curb such mischief and for which the Ninety First Constitution Amendment Act 2003 was passed limiting Cabinet in the state and parliament as well.
The Ministry’s Ninety First Amendment Act 2003 which was notified on 1st January 2004 inserted that the total number of Ministers including the Chief Minister in the Council of Minister in the state shall not exceed fifteen percent of the total number of the members of Legislative Assembly of the state. Provided that the number of Ministers including the Chief Minister in a state shall not be less than twelve. Provided that further that where the total number of Ministers including the Chief Minister in the Council of Ministers in any state at the commencement of the Constitution (Ninety First Amendment) Act 2003 exceeds the said fifteen percent or the number specified in the first proviso, as the case may be, then the total number of ministers in the state shall be brought in conformity with the provisions of this clause within six months from such date as the President may be public notification appoint.
In the light of the amended constitution as stated herein and the above which is mandatory within union of India came into operation since June 2004. However, subsequent to the appointment of many Parliamentary Secretaries having same privileges and excess to the public office as that of the Cabinet Ministers raises cantena of questions as to whether the Parliamentary Secretaries are usurper to the public office in violation to the law of the land, secondly, whether their appointments including oath of secrecy as administered by the Chief Minister has sanction of law when Governor is the head of the state. It is also important question of law as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary post can be within the preview of holding office of profit attracting Article 191 and 192 of disqualification in view of the Ninety First Constitution Amendment provision, and the other most important is as to whether the Ninety First Constitution Amendment Act 2003 is circumvented by such appointments. On the other side, there is of the contention that it is within power for a state under constitution to create such Parliamentary Secretaries, as a matter of fact, such an important question of law and arguments concerning entire states being raised by some learned NGOs and even individual intellects deserve appreciation and this should not construe to any otherwise.
The largest democracy like ours, we have parliament to make law for everyone, we have judiciary for interpretation and the executive to implement laws for the land. And the main issue of disputes being already referred before the appropriate jurisdiction, it is just a matter of time for sooner or later the apex court will have to deliver its verdict and make known to the public as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary post shall stand legal or declare illegal.
Neiko Kanuo
BA (H) LL.B
Kohima
