The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking guidelines to prevent individuals facing serious criminal charges from being appointed as ministers or given important Cabinet portfolios.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the plea, which sought guidelines equiring the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to take into account the criminal backgrounds of legislators while appointing them as ministers and assigning Cabinet portfolios.
The petitioner clarified that the plea did not seek to introduce any additional disqualification under Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which deal with the appointment of Union and State ministers respectively. Instead, it sought to ensure that the discretion exercised in selecting ministers and assigning portfolios was guided by certain standards of prudence.
Justice Bagchi observed that the petitioner's argument was based on constitutional morality.
"What you are arguing is constitutional morality. It is not binding," he said.
Additionally, he questioned the feasibility of such a framework.
"Criminal law is continuously weaponised against people who are in the democratic process, sometimes by their political opponents. In such a situation, would it not be left to the discretion of the Chief Minister to decide whether a particular criminal case is sufficiently embarrassing for the government to exclude that person from the Cabinet?" asked Justice Bagchi.
The petitioner, however, maintained that the plea was not intended to question the constitutional powers of the executive but only to ensure that they were exercised reasonably.
"All that I am saying is that the exercise of discretion has to be reasonable. There have to be certain parameters governing that discretion," the counsel submitted.
Justice Bagchi responded that the Court would be entering difficult territory if it attempted to frame such guidelines.
"We are conscious of the fact that criminal prosecutions may follow a change of regime. We would be wading into that area," he said.
The petitioner also referred to an analysis by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), claiming that nearly half of legislators face serious criminal charges.
According to ADR's 2025 analysis of sitting MLAs across State Assemblies and Union Territories, of the 4,092 MLAs analysed, 1,861 (45 percent) had declared criminal cases, while 1,205 (29 percent) had declared serious criminal cases.
The counsel argued that despite the Supreme Court having acknowledged the problem over a decade ago, the parliament has not taken adequate steps to address it.
The petitioner further submitted that voters do not consent to having legislators with criminal antecedents being appointed as cabinet ministers.
"Whenever I cast my vote, I do not necessarily agree to somebody with criminal antecedents becoming a cabinet minister. With respect, there has to be a reasonable limit. That is all I am saying," said the counsel.
However, the Court proceeded to dismiss the plea.
[Read Live Coverage]