High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petitions Challenging Nomination of Members to Karnataka Legislative Council Under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. Governor's Satisfaction in Nominating Members with Special Knowledge or Practical Experience in Respect of Literature, Science, Art, Co-operative Movement and Social Service is Not Justiciable Unless Mala Fides Are Alleged.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the nomination of respondents 4 to 8 as Members of the Karnataka Legislative Council under Article 171(5) of the Constitution. The petitioners, S. Rajendran and P. Kodandaramiah, sought a declaration that the nominated members had no authority to hold office. The court examined the scope of judicial review over the Governor's satisfaction in making such nominations. It held that the Governor's satisfaction is subjective and not justiciable unless mala fides are alleged. The court found no mala fides and dismissed both petitions, upholding the nominations.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Council - Nomination under Article 171(5) - Governor's Satisfaction - The court considered whether the Governor's satisfaction in nominating members with special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service is justiciable. Held that the Governor's satisfaction is subjective and not open to judicial review unless mala fides are alleged. The court found no mala fides and dismissed the petitions. (Paras 1-15)

B) Constitutional Law - Legislative Council - Nomination - Scope of Judicial Review - The court examined the extent to which courts can examine the qualifications of nominated members. Held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the Governor's decision and can only examine if there is any constitutional violation or mala fides. The nominations were upheld. (Paras 1-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the nomination of respondents 4 to 8 as Members of the Karnataka Legislative Council under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India is valid and whether the Governor's satisfaction is subject to judicial review.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India
  • Governor's satisfaction
  • justiciability of nomination
  • special knowledge and practical experience
  • mala fides
  • scope of judicial review
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (07) 11

Writ Petition No.32141/2014 c/w Writ Petition No.7039/2015 (GM-RES)

2017-07-31

Dr. Vineet Kothari

S. Basavaraju, Reuben Jacob, A.G. Shivanna, T.L. Kiran Kumar, K. Krishna, D.R. Anandeeshwara, A. Nagarajappa, H.D. Amarnathan, B.M. Arun, H.S. Chandra Mouli, Krishna Moorthy D, H.M. Siddarth

S. Rajendran and P. Kodandaramiah

State of Karnataka, Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka Governor's Secretariat, V.S. Ugrappa, K. Abdul Jabbar, Dr. Jaimala Ramachandra, Ivan D'Souza, Iqbal Ahmed Saradagi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the nomination of members to the Karnataka Legislative Council under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that respondents 4 to 8 have no authority to hold and continue to hold the public office of Member, Karnataka Legislative Council under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India.

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged that the nominated members lacked the requisite special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service as required under Article 171(5).

Issues

Whether the Governor's satisfaction under Article 171(5) is justiciable. Whether the nominated members possess the requisite qualifications under Article 171(5).

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the nominated members do not have special knowledge or practical experience in the specified fields. Respondents contended that the Governor's satisfaction is subjective and not open to judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi

The Governor's satisfaction under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India is subjective and not justiciable unless mala fides are alleged. The court cannot sit in appeal over the Governor's decision regarding the qualifications of nominated members.

Judgment Excerpts

The Governor's satisfaction under Article 171(5) is subjective and not open to judicial review unless mala fides are alleged. The court cannot sit in appeal over the Governor's decision.

Procedural History

Writ Petition No.32141/2014 was filed by S. Rajendran and Writ Petition No.7039/2015 was filed by P. Kodandaramiah, both challenging the nomination of respondents 4 to 8. The petitions were heard together and dismissed by a common order.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 171(5), Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petitions Challenging Nomination of Members to Karnataka Legislative Council Under Article 171(5) of the Constitution of India. Governor's Satisfaction in Nominating Members with Special Knowledge or Practical Experi...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Reversal of Injunction in Specific Performance Suit — Unregistered Agreement to Sell Inadmissible Under Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908. The appellate court's order setting aside the temporary ...