Shimla: Twelve BJP MLAs in Himachal Pradesh have moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the appointment of deputy chief ministers and chief parliamentary secretaries in the Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu-led Congress government.
The BJP has questioned the deputy CM’s appointment on the grounds that his oath-taking violated constitutional provisions.
Meanwhile, the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries has been challenged as an alleged attempt to circumvent legislative norms regarding the size of the State Council of Ministers. Similar appointments were quashed by the High Court in 2005. At that time the Congress government headed by late Virbhadra Singh was in power.
The petitioners include former BJP state president and Una MLA Satpal Singh Satti, former speaker HP Vidhan Sabha and Sulah MLA Vipin Singh Parmar, Shri Naina Devi MLA Randhir Sharma, Churah MLA and former deputy speaker Hansraj.
A High Court bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan issued notice to the state government and other respondents seeking response on the plea and listed the matter for further hearing on May 19.
However, the BJP’s petition has come as a surprise to many within the party itself, as it has been appointing deputy CMs in states where it is in power, the latest being in Maharashtra, where former CM Devendra Fadnavis Was appointed to this post last year.
Meanwhile, the Congress fumed over the petition, calling it an “act of vendetta” against Deputy CM Mukesh Agnihotri, saying he played a key role in “ousting the BJP from power” in Himachal Pradesh.
BJP’s petition
The Congress took over the reins of the state last December with Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu becoming the Chief Minister and Mukesh Agnihotri, a five-time MLA from Haroli in Una district, as the Deputy CM.
Agnihotri’s appointment was seen as an attempt to strike a balance, as he is considered close to the Virbhadra family, which has been a major player in the state for nearly 40 years.
In their petition, the BJP legislators have argued that the act of creating an “office/post/position” of a Deputy Chief Minister is arbitrary and not authorized under the Constitution.
“The Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh took the oath of office on 11th December, 2022 and respondent no. 4 (Mukesh Agnihotri) was sworn in as Deputy CM on the same day,” reads the petition, a copy of which is with ThePrint.
The BJP has said that under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the swearing-in of ministers of state, a deputy CM cannot be sworn in. According to the party, he could have been sworn in as chief minister or cabinet minister, but not as deputy CM.
The petition states, “There is neither any provision of the Constitution of India nor any statutory enactment nor any executive direction which empowers the State Government to create the office/post/position of Deputy Chief Minister in the State “
“As the creation of the office/post/position of Deputy Chief Minister is without any authority of law, the same needs to be declared arbitrary and the creation of the said office/post/position of Deputy Chief Minister may be set aside.”
It makes a similar argument for the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries. “It is pertinent to reiterate that the Constitution does not envisage any office of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries under Part VI, Chapter III of the Constitution, which pertains to the State Legislature,” it says.
He has said that these secretaries have been allotted staff, office and other facilities equivalent to ministerial level.
The petition also seeks to highlight Chapter II of Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with the executive. “The Constitution envisages three offices under the executive: 1. the governor, 2. the cabinet headed by the chief minister, and 3. the office of the advocate general of the state. The State does not have the power to enact any other office other than those mentioned in the Constitution,” it adds.
The petition states that the appointments also violate the Salaries and Allowances of Ministers of Himachal Pradesh Act, 2000, which states that Section 3 of the Act deals with the Chief Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers (without independent Ministers) Relating to pay and allowances. charge of any ministry and are attached to a cabinet minister or minister of state). It has been said in the petition that there is no provision for the Deputy Chief Minister.
Vir Bahadur Verma, one of the advocates for the petitioners, told ThePrint, “It is also worth mentioning that the CPS (Chief Parliamentary Secretaries) were sworn in by the Chief Minister and have been accorded ministerial status with their own staff members With all the facilities and privileges of ministers.
The same, he said, “shows that the State has thwarted the basic objective of the 91st Amendment of the Constitution, which restricts the size of the cabinet, to prevent the establishment of jumbo cabinets and the huge drain on the exchequer.” ”.
no new controversy
The controversy over the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries in Himachal Pradesh is not new.
On 18 August 2005, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justices VK Gupta and Deepak Gupta, quashed the appointments of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries saying they were against constitutional provisions.
Former chief minister and BJP leader Jairam Thakur said the Congress government should not go ahead with the appointment of chief parliamentary secretaries, especially when “various courts have set it aside in other states”.
As far as Deputy CM is concerned, there is some technical problem regarding the appointment of DCM in Himachal. We are not against anyone, but the process should be followed. “So we’ve challenged it in its totality.”
Una MLA Satpal Singh Satti said his legal position has been clarified in the petition and the court has accepted it [the petition],
Asked whether it was justified to challenge the deputy CM’s appointment when the BJP has done the same in other states, he said, “The legal team has already explained the grounds.”
The Congress has slammed the BJP regarding the petition. Himachal Congress Vice President Maheshwar Chauhan said that BJP should act like a national party.
“Is the state unit of BJP not a part of the national BJP? Because BJP has deputy CMs in many states. “It seems that the state BJP is undermining the national leadership. Challenging the post of deputy CM is an act of vendetta as Mukesh Agnihotri was instrumental in ousting the BJP from power in the state.
Deputy CM Mukesh Agnihotri said, “I don’t know who advised the BJP to do this.”
“Now the matter is in court and I have full faith in the judiciary,” he told ThePrint. As far as BJP’s field is concerned, they should not forget former deputy PM Devi Lal, LK Advani and deputy CMs appointed by BJP in other states.
Even within the BJP, some people have questioned the petition. “This should have been avoided,” said a senior party leader on condition of anonymity. “Challenging the CPS appointment is justified and we are sure that justice will be served. But as far as the Deputy CM is concerned, it is in many states and the courts have repeatedly cleared the position.”
Congress Vice President Maheshwar Chauhan said that the government appointed CPS to give more representation to the people’s representatives. As far as litigation is concerned, he said, “Former CM Virbhadra Singh had made a law to facilitate the appointments of CPS.”
(Editing by Sunanda Ranjan)
Read this also:It has to be known’: Tribal women in Himachal’s Kinnaur expect Murmu to end age-old law