Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

PIL against 'illegal' appointment of Nayab Singh Saini, 13 Cabinet ministers

High Court to hear petition on December 19
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini. File
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today fixed December 19 for hearing a petition filed in public interest for quashing the appointment of Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini and 13 Cabinet ministers on the ground of being “illegal and unconstitutional”.

The petition against the Union of India, the State of Haryana, Saini, the ministers and other respondents was placed before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal. The Bench made it clear that the matter would be heard along with a related PIL filed earlier. The respondents would, on the date fixed, respond to the submissions made in the petition.

Among other things, advocate-petitioner Jagmohan Singh Bhatti stated that the appointments were arbitrary, a burden on the public exchequer and a setback to the austerity drive. He stated that the challenge was to the appointment of the newly sworn-in Cabinet in violation of the constitutional amendment.

Advertisement

Elaborating, he said the council of ministers in a State could not exceed 15 per cent of the total strength of the House. But in the present case, it exceeded 15 per cent of the total strength. Bhatti said Haryana had a 90-member legislative Assembly. As such, the total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, could not exceed 13.

The petitioner further submitted that the respondent-State, in addition to the ministers, also conferred the Cabinet rank to the Advocate-General, “thus exceeding 15 per cent of the total strength of the House illegally and arbitrarily”.

Advertisement

Exceeds 15% of House strength

As per the plea, the council of ministers in a State could not exceed 15 per cent of the total strength of the House. But in the present case, it exceeded 15 per cent of the total strength of the 90-member Assembly.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper