Karnataka HC dismisses PIL challenging appointment of DK Shivakumar as CM, swearing-in of ministers

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of DK Shivakumar as Chief Minister of the State, terming it a 'frivolous' petition filed merely to seek publicity. [Mangalappa v. State of Karnataka].A Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha directed the petitioner, Hubballi resident Mangalappa, to deposit costs of ₹50,000 with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two weeks..During the hearing, the Bench observed, "You pay costs for this kind of frivolous petition. There is no question of withdrawal.".The petitioner had contended that the swearing-in of Shivakumar along with 13 ministers violated Article 164(1A) of the Constitution. He argued that since the Karnataka Legislative Assembly has 224 members, the Council of Ministers should comprise not less than 24 members and not more than 33 members..However, the Bench pointed out that the petition was based on a complete misreading of the constitutional provision."The present petition is premised on an erroneous ground that the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a Council of Ministers cannot be less than 12 per cent of the total members of the Karnataka Legislature. A plain reading of the proviso to Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India states that the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a State shall not be less than 12.".It further noted that the petition proceeded on an 'ex facie erroneous' interpretation by treating the constitutional requirement as '12 per cent' instead of the minimum number of '12.'"We are of the view that the present petition is essentially being filed to seek publicity and has resulted in an obvious and unjustifiable imposition on judicial time," the Court said while dismissing the petition..At one stage, the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Hanumanth Kumar L, sought permission to withdraw the plea. The Court declined the request.The counsel submitted that Article 164(1A) provided that the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a State shall not be less than 12.The Bench responded, "So, how many ministers have been sworn in?"When the lawyer replied that 14 had been sworn in, the Court remarked,"14 is greater than 12 or lesser than 12? You yourself are saying it is 14 members. How can 14 be less than 12? What has the total strength of the Assembly got to do with this proviso? The proviso says they shall not be less than 12. It does not say 12 per cent. There is no per cent there. It is 12."