PIL against Cabinet rank to 42 MLAs, MLCs raises important issues: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Friday asked the State government to file its response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the grant of cabinet rank to 42 persons, including Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) heading various Boards and Corporations in the State [Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka and ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun observed that the case involved important issues that requires a conclusive decision."The issues arising (in the PIL) bearing Constitutional and democratic importance, deserves to be threshed out finally. It would require a definite response from the State government. Notice returnable on March 27," the Court's order said. The Court clarified that it has only made prima facie observations on the matter and that all questions of law remain open to be argued after pleadings are filed. The State was ordered to file its response by March 18. The matter will be heard next on March 27..The Court was hearing a petition moved by a Bengaluru resident who is working with the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Suri Payala.Payala pointed out that cabinet rank status generally comes with enhanced salaries and several perks, such as a new car, a driver, fuel, house rent allowance (HRA) and medical reimbursement.This constitutes an 'office of profit' which cannot be held by legislators according to Article 191 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner contended.Therefore, he argued that the grant of such rank to 42 MLAs/MLCs in the State was unconstitutional. He also contended that it violates Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution, which restricts the size of the council of ministers.The plea pointed out that 34 legislators were given the cabinet rank last month by a January 26 government order. Eight others already held this rank, taking the total number to 42 MLAs and MLCs with cabinet rank..During today's hearing of the matter, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the petitioner, said,"Primary submission is, if there is already a cabinet post and then you elevate another person to a similar status, then there is duplication of roles. That is in teeth of Article 164(1A) ... Out of 42 people, 30 people are directly in violation of Article 191. And all of them are in violation of 164(1A) because they crossed the ceiling of 15 per cent.".The plea was opposed by the State government, represented by Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, who told the Court that a similar issue was already dealt with by the High Court in 2023.He also questioned the motives of the petitioner."Petitioner is a chief level engineer officer employed by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. This petitioner has been trying to get the post of Chairman of Pollution Control Board. He has filed two writ petitions before your lordships, which is pending. He has not been appointed as Chairman of PCB. We have already appointed a Chairman. He is still working there. Being dissatisfied, he is saying 'I will take on you people,'" AG Shetty said.The Court acknowledged that the bonafides of a petitioner in a PIL is important, but went on to opine that such concerns pale in significance when the PIL raises important issues.Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Deepak maintained that the earlier judgment cited by AG Shetty did not cover the primary concerns raised in the present case."The argument under Article 191 has not even been considered (by the earlier judgment), let alone even been raised for that matter," Deepak said..[Read Live Coverage]