The petitioner, a former police officer from Belagavi district, argued that such appointments amount to wasteful expenditure from the state exchequer.
Published Feb 27, 2025 | 3:18 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 27, 2025 | 3:18 PM
Karnataka High Court. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Karnataka High Court sought the state government’s response to a PIL challenging the appointment of Congress party workers as chairpersons of the guarantee implementation committees. The petitioner argued that such appointments amount to wasteful expenditure from the state exchequer. The court directed the state government to file a response by 27 March.
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday, 27 February, sought the state government’s response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Congress party workers as chairpersons of the “guarantee implementation committees” with Cabinet rank status without any proper basis or oversight.
The petitioner, a former police officer from Belagavi district, argued that such appointments amount to wasteful expenditure from the state exchequer.
Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner before a Bench led by Chief Justice NV Anjaria, presented the challenges to the Government Order (GO) dated 25 January 2024, along with two consequential orders issued by the state.
The court directed the state government to file a response by 27 March, reported Bar and Bench.
The petition challenged the Government Order (GO) dated 25 January 2024, along with two consequential orders issued by the state government. These orders were meant to implement the government’s five guarantee schemes — free electricity, food grain distribution, monetary aid for unemployed graduates, free bus travel for women and other social welfare benefits.
The petitioner argued that the guarantee schemes were “freebies” promised ahead of the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections and it helped the Congress win the elections.
He said that the government has constituted state, district, and taluk-level authorities to implement these schemes, including for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) constituencies.
“The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of these authorities have been given Cabinet and Minister of State status, respectively. Those appointed are political workers, not elected representatives or ministers. These appointments come with perks and financial benefits, burdening the state exchequer. The appointees lack the necessary qualifications and may interfere with policy implementation, affecting schemes of public importance. The appointments violate Article 164 of the Constitution and constitute a “backdoor entry” into the government,” the petition said.
Hearing the petition, Justice Arun inquired about the mention of Cabinet ranks in the government order.
Senior Advocate Shyam responded: “Cabinet rank is provided.” he said and read out the relevant section of the document, “The Chairman of the Committee is granted Cabinet rank status as the State-level implementing authority of the guarantee scheme. The Vice-Chairman is given the rank of Minister of State.”
Shyam argued that the appointees are party workers with no educational qualifications or relevant experience.” This pattern extends to all levels — state, district, and taluk,” he noted.
Justice Arun noted: “The Government Order (GO) appears to indicate that a person who is appointed as Chairman should already have Cabinet rank status. It does not state that a person will be appointed and then conferred Cabinet rank.”
Shyam said there was no Cabinet resolution but only a note from the chief minister. “Annexure A does not even specify the appointing authority. The government could have appointed IAS officers instead,” he said.
When Chief Justice Anjaria asked whether the appointments were common for all schemes, or whether they were scheme-specific, Shyam replied that there was no clarity.
The Chief Justice also questioned, “Apart from Article 164, which other Constitutional provisions are violated? Can these appointments be considered government appointments?”
Shyam replied it was a backdoor entry into government administration. The state government’s counsel argued that there was no specific incident of misuse mentioned.
However, the court decided to seek the state government’s response, stating: “On a prima facie consideration, we are inclined to solicit the state’s reply. Notice issued to the State Government, returnable by 27 March.”
(Compiled by Muhammed Fazil.)
