Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
On Monday, February 12, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that the appointment of Deputy Chief Ministers in multiple states violated Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the Court, the Deputy Chief Minister’s role was only a title and not more than that of a minister in the state government.
The bench, which included Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, rejected to accept the case because they believed it to be misconceived.
The “Public Political Party”, the petitioner, had asked the court for a mandamus to end the “unconstitutional appointment” of deputy chief ministers in several states.
Even a Deputy Chief Minister, according to the CJI, is first and foremost a minister; the title “Deputy Chief Minister” is “just a label”. He went on to say that the nomination of a deputy chief minister is unaffected by the constitution and that holding the title has no additional benefits, such as a higher salary.
The petitioner’s Advocate argued that Article 14 and Article 51A of the Constitution were violated by the process of designating a deputy chief minister. The Court rejected the case, not seeming to want to consider it. The Court observed: “ The submission is that there is no such office stipulated in the Constitution. A Deputy Chief Minister is first and foremost a minister in the government of the states. The appellation of a Deputy CM does not breach the constitutional position.”
Name of the case: Public Political Party vs. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000090 -/ 2024.
Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.