Telangana High Court has adjudicated the two writ petitions challenging the Governor’s rejection of the nomination of Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana as MLCs on seven issues. However, the core point involved in the two pleas was the scope and power of the Governor under Article 171 (5) of the Constitution to make nominations for the Legislative Council of State of Telangana.
Noting that the first issue was the scope and ambit of immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution and its impact on the maintainability of the two pleas, the HC observed: “there is no express or implicit bar in the Constitution which excludes the power of judicial review in respect of an action taken by the Governor”. Citing judgements of the Supreme Court and different HCs, the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti said the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 was personal in nature. Hence, the two writ petitions were maintainable, the bench said.
Referring to the nature and scope of power under Article 171 (5) of the Constitution, the bench held that the Governor “is not under an obligation in all circumstances, to accept the recommendation made by the Council of Ministers, but is entitled to examine whether the person in whose favour a recommendation has been made for nomination as MLC is ineligible or suffers from any disqualification under Article 191 of the Constitution or under the Representation of People Act-1951. The Governor can also request the Council of Ministers to re-examine the recommendation made by it. The Governor can undoubtedly return the recommendation for re-consideration to the Council of Ministers.”
The third issue being ‘the grounds on which judicial review of an action of the Governor is permissible in law’, the bench said the courts can review the action of the Governor if the latter ‘acts ultra vires the constitutional provision or where the action suffers from mala fides’. Deciding upon the fourth issue of ‘whether the petitioners had locus standi to move the HC and are aggrieved persons’, the bench noted that the petitioners had legitimate expectations for consideration as MLCs since the Council of Ministers made a recommendation in their favour. “The denial of legitimate expectation gives the petitioners the sufficient locus standi”, to approach the HC, the judgement said.
On the fifth issue of whether it was open for the petitioners to seek implementation of the Council of Ministers’ recommendation, the bench remarked that the petitioners did not demand enforcement of the Cabinet’s recommendation nominating them as MLCs. But they challenged the Governor’s rejection of their nomination citing it as ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioners only sought a declaration that the Governor was bound to act as per the aid and advice of the Cabinet. Referring to the sixth issue of the effect of ‘events subsequent to the rejection of their nomination’, the bench held that the subsequent withdrawal of nominations of the petitioners by the government and nomination in favour of Kodandaram and Amer Ali Khan had no impact on the controversy involved in the petitions.
Referring to the validity of the Governor’s order issued on September 19, 2023 rejecting the petitioners’ nomination as MLCs, the bench held that it was not open for the Governor to reject the nominations in the absence of any material. The Governor could have remitted the matter to the Cabinet either for furnishing requisite documents or for reconsideration, the judgement said.
