Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raviraj Gururaj Kulkarni, an advocate residing in Koppal, Karnataka, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. He sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the swearing-in ceremony of the first respondent, Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contended that the first respondent had been convicted on 27.09.2014 by a Special Judge in Special CC No.208/2004 for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, she was disqualified from holding the office of Chief Minister. The petition was filed on 21.05.2015, and the court considered the issue of maintainability. The court held that the petitioner, being a resident of Karnataka and not of Tamil Nadu, had no locus standi to challenge the swearing-in ceremony of the Chief Minister of another state. The court observed that the petition did not involve any violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights or any legal right. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Petitioner, a resident of Karnataka, sought to restrain the swearing-in of the first respondent as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu based on her conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as he is not a resident of Tamil Nadu and the matter does not involve any fundamental right of the petitioner - The petition is not maintainable (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a resident of Karnataka seeking to restrain the swearing-in of a convicted person as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of locus standi.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Public Interest Litigation
- Maintainability
- Disqualification under Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Conviction and Office of Chief Minister
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (05) 4
Writ Petition No.21848/2015 (GM-RES)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, B. Veerappa
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, The Secretary Governor’s Secretariat Chennai, The Chief Secretary Government of Tamilnadu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation seeking writ of mandamus to restrain swearing-in ceremony of a convicted person as Chief Minister.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain respondents from proceeding with the swearing-in ceremony of the first respondent as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the first respondent was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, and thus disqualified from holding the office of Chief Minister.
Previous Decisions
The first respondent was convicted by the Special Judge in Special CC No.208/2004 on 27.09.2014.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition seeking to restrain the swearing-in of the Chief Minister of another state.
Whether the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the first respondent's conviction disqualified her from becoming Chief Minister and sought to restrain the swearing-in ceremony.
Ratio Decidendi
A petitioner who is not a resident of the state and whose fundamental rights are not affected has no locus standi to challenge the swearing-in ceremony of the Chief Minister of another state. Such a petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
The first respondent, Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, was the Chief Minister of State of Tamilnadu till 27.09.2014.
She having been convicted by the learned Special Judge in Special CC No.208/2004 on 27.09.2014 for the offences punishable under S.13(1)(e) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, resigned.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 21.05.2015 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The court heard the matter on the same day and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 13(1)(e), Section 13(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 120-B
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
