Karnataka High Court Denies PIL Challenging DK Shivakumar’s Appointment
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that contested the appointment of DK Shivakumar as the Chief Minister of Karnataka. The court labeled the petition as ‘frivolous’ and believed it was filed mainly for publicity purposes. This case, titled Mangalappa v. State of Karnataka, was brought before Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice KS Hemalekha.
The Bench instructed the petitioner, Mangalappa from Hubballi, to deposit a fine of ₹50,000 with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. During the proceedings, the Court was firm in its decision, stating, “You pay costs for this kind of frivolous petition. There is no question of withdrawal.”
The Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that the swearing-in of DK Shivakumar alongside 13 other ministers violated Article 164(1A) of the Indian Constitution. According to him, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, which comprises 224 members, should have a Council of Ministers with at least 24 and no more than 33 members.
However, the Bench dismissed this argument as a complete misinterpretation of the constitutional provision. The Court clarified, “The present petition is premised on an erroneous ground that the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a Council of Ministers cannot be less than 12 per cent of the total members of the Karnataka Legislature. A plain reading of the proviso to Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India states that the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a State shall not be less than 12.”
Misinterpretation of Constitutional Law
The court further noted that the petition was based on an ‘ex facie erroneous’ interpretation of the constitutional requirement, mistaking it as ’12 per cent’ instead of a minimum of ’12’ ministers. The Bench remarked that the petition was filed primarily for publicity and was an unjustifiable burden on judicial resources.
More Read
At a certain point, the petitioner’s lawyer, Advocate Hanumanth Kumar L, sought to withdraw the plea, but the court denied this request. The counsel reiterated that Article 164(1A) mandates the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, should not be less than 12. The Bench questioned, “So, how many ministers have been sworn in?”
Upon hearing that 14 ministers had been sworn in, the Court stated, “14 is greater than 12 or lesser than 12? You yourself are saying it is 14 members. How can 14 be less than 12? What has the total strength of the Assembly got to do with this proviso? The proviso says they shall not be less than 12. It does not say 12 per cent. There is no per cent there. It is 12.”
