In a case that may impact the outcome of the
disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister
Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court will, on October 24,2016 hear on merits a
pending petition on whether Chief Ministers or Ministers of government
can actually be treated as ‘public servants’ on a par with government
functionaries performing public duties.
Listed for hearing on Oct. 24,2016
The
petition, filed by advocate R. Rajavel, has been listed for hearing on
October 24,2016 and is likely to come up before a Bench of Justices P.C.
Ghose and Amitava Roy. This is the Bench that heard and reserved for
judgment a batch of appeals against the acquittal of Ms. Jayalalithaa
and her three co-accused by the Karnataka High Court in the wealth case.
The
Supreme Court admitted Mr. Rajavel’s petition in November 2015 and
issued notice to the opposite parties, including the Centre, the State
of Karnataka, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. Anbazhagan, and
Ms. Jayalalithaa.
The court, on November 23 ,2015 tagged this petition with the disproportionate assets case.
The
petition primarily asked whether it was repugnant to treat Chief
Ministers and Ministers on a par with other public servants on
government roll, especially when no statute passed by the legislature
had ever specifically defined them as such.
Mr.
Rajavel contended that his plea was triggered by the prolonged
litigation in the Jayalalithaa wealth case. It contended that written
law or statutes enacted by Parliament did not include political persons
in the category of public servants.
Court’s interpretation
The Supreme Court, on February 20, 1979, in its judgment in M. Karunanidhi versus Union of India held that the post of Chief Minister was that of a ‘public servant’.
Interpreting
the term ‘public servant’, the apex court had taken recourse to Section
21(12)(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which defines a public
servant as “every person in the service or pay of the government or
remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty
by the government”. The Prevention of Corruption Act also defines a
public servant in a manner similar to the IPC.
The
petition contended that, under parliamentary law, public servants are
those who are required to pass an examination to prove their
credentials, who needed to be of a prescribed age limit, who ought to be
politically neutral, and are governed by the Central State Civil
Services Conduct Rules.
Jayalalithaa’s caseOn
the other hand, politicians, who are appointed by the President or the
Governor on the basis of their electoral performance, and swear ‘in the
name of God’, are a privileged category who carry out the political
agenda of their parties, and their remuneration is decided by the State
legislatures. In Ms. Jayalalithaa’s case, the petition pointed out how
the Prosecution had, throughout, treated her as a public servant even
though she was both the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the general
secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam during
1991-1996, the period under consideration
No comments:
Post a Comment