Verdict nullifying CPSs’ appointments has many implications

A recent decision of a Himachal Pradesh High Court bench, comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, nullified the appointments of six chief parliamentary secretaries (CPSs), thereby generating a debate across political and administrative circles.

The verdict, rooted in constitutional propriety, raises questions about the limits of the executive authority and holds potential long-term consequences for governance, fiscal responsibility and political manoeuvering in the state.

Advocate-General Anup Kumar Rattan has claimed that on the lines of Assam case, ex-CPSs will not lose their membership of the Vidhan Sabha. A special leave petition (SLP) has been filed in the Supreme Court which will give its ruling on the basis of constitutional provisions. Contrary to it, BJP state leaders have demanded the disqualification of the six former CPSs and filed a caveat in the SC to counter the government’s stand.

Ambiguity over disqualification: As a forward movement, everyone is anxious to know the fate of six former CPS as the matter has reached the highest court in the country. The state government will plead for an interim stay and contest the new angle of disqualification of the ousted CPSs under the provision of House of Profit which is a constitutional issue. The apex court is likely to decide whether the high court verdict will be effective from retrospective date and if so, they are bound to lose their seats.

Political Implications: Constitutional experts say the verdict may serve as a judicial check on the executive’s ability to appoint CPSs and PSs, which is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and propriety The ruling is a setback to the state government, which used these CPS appointments as a tool to appease factions within the party, provide administrative positions and strengthen political control.

It may be recalled that the BJP’s Dhumal government had also indulged in an identical act in 2013 and appointed three CPSs, followed by similar appointments of 10 CPSs by the previous Virbhadra Singh government which were deemed political rewards to the loyalists.

Former Jai Ram government, however, refrained from appointing CPSs, though Sukhu went ahead with these appointments which have been quashed. By invalidating these appointments, the court has curbed an informal avenue for expanding ministerial influence which also places other states of the country on alert.

This verdict could set a precedent, prompting states to re-evaluate the legality of their illegal acts which will not pass the litmus test of the legal scrutiny. Financial experts feel that the fiscal dimension of this verdict may resonate with taxpayers and economic conservatives alike. CPSs’’ appointments, seen as a profitable and lucrative measure, do come with unwarranted associated expenditures, including salaries, allowances, office expenses and travel costs.

The nullification of these positions sends a message that constitutional boundaries and fiscal prudence take precedence over political convenience. It may enhance the judiciary’s reputation as a guardian of the Constitution, reinforcing public trust in the legal process to curb political excesses.

Finally, the verdict may prompt a re-evaluation of the roles of the CPSs roles across India, as other states could face similar judicial scrutiny.

— The author is a political analyst and columnist based in Shimla