Maharashtra’s Revised Rules of Business: Enhancing Chief Ministerial Authority
In a significant move earlier this month, the Maharashtra government amended its Rules of Business to formally empower the Chief Minister (CM) to override decisions made by any cabinet minister, except in quasi-judicial matters, on the grounds of ‘public interest’ (Rule 13, sub-rule 5, 2026). This amendment has sparked vigorous debate, with critics labeling the CM as a ‘Super Chief Minister’ and questioning the constitutional validity of the change. However, such criticisms may not fully appreciate the constitutional role of a Chief Minister within the Council of Ministers.
The Chief Minister’s Constitutional Role
The CM is often referred to as primus inter pares, or first among equals. However, the Constitution provides the CM with more significant powers and responsibilities than individual ministers. Article 154 of the Constitution vests executive power in the Governor, usually exercised on the advice of the council of ministers led by the CM, as per Article 163. This establishes the CM as the constitutional head of the council.
According to Article 166(3), the Governor must create rules for the convenient transaction of government business and its distribution among ministers. Decisions made by ministers under these rules reflect the state’s collective decision-making process, for which the council is collectively responsible. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this special status of the CM, notably in Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil v. State of Gujarat (1996). The Court highlighted that the CM holds ultimate responsibility to the Governor and accountability to the people for ensuring effective governance.
Judicial Precedents and the CM’s Authority
The Gulabrao case is particularly relevant to Maharashtra’s recent developments. Here, a Revenue Minister’s decision was reviewed and altered by the CM, prompting a legal challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that a minister’s decision is not final until it is communicated in the Governor’s name as per Article 166. The CM retains the power to review such decisions, an “implied power” linked to their responsibility to the Governor and accountability to the public.
The Court also emphasized that the CM’s authority to override decisions does not operate independently but rather as part of the council’s collective responsibility. This judicial interpretation underscores that the CM’s role extends beyond merely being the first among equals.
More Read
Comparative Analysis: Other Indian States
Maharashtra is not alone in explicitly empowering its CM to intervene in ministerial decisions. States like Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka have similar provisions in their Business Rules, allowing CMs to act suo motu on policy matters or urgent issues.
For instance, Gujarat’s Rule 15, sub-rule 5, empowers the CM to make decisions on policy or urgent matters, reflecting a broader trend of centralizing crucial decision-making authority within the CM’s office.
The Bombay High Court’s Stance and Maharashtra’s Response
The revised Rules seem to be a response to the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank v. State of Maharashtra (2023). In this case, the court ruled that the CM lacked jurisdiction to stay a minister’s decision without explicit legal provision. The judgment underscored the need for express legal authority for such interventions, a gap that the new rules aim to fill.
While the High Court’s decision did not negate the possibility of granting such powers to the CM, it highlighted the absence of a clear legal basis in the previous rules. The revised rules now explicitly authorize the CM to override ministerial decisions in the public interest, with written justification, except in quasi-judicial matters.
By addressing the concerns raised by the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra government has solidified the CM’s role in ensuring coherent and accountable governance.
