Tamilisai Soundararajan in September last year rejected the appointment of Dr Sravan Kumar Dasoju and Kurra Satyanarayanaa as MLCs.
Published Jan 03, 2024 | 6:22 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 03, 2024 | 6:23 PM
File photo of the Telangana High Court. (Creative Commons)
The Telangana High Court will hear on Friday, 5 January, the maintainability of petitions challenging Governor Tammilisai Soundararajan rejecting the Cabinet decision of the previous BRS government recommending the appointment of Dr Sravan Kumar Dasoju and Kurra Satyanarayanaa as Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs).
The then Cabinet, chaired by former chief minister K Chandrashekhar Rao, sent the recommendation to the Governor in July, which she rejected on 19 September.
The two leaders, whose appointment as MLCs was rejected, filed a petition in the high court challenging the decision, but the court registry objected to the petition’s maintainability.
The registry said that under Article 361 of the Constitution, no criminal proceedings could be initiated against the Governor.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar, however, directed the registry to number the petitions and said it would take up the question of their maintainability.
The Governor, while rejecting the recommendation, cited a lack of “special achievements” accompanied by a “short tenure” in the respective fields, as well as the absence of methodology adopted for consideration.
The Governor also advised the Council of Ministers to consider “non-politically-affiliated people” as it would not “take away the opportunities to genuine people”.
Tamilisai referred to the Constitution laying down that the state government was empowered to nominate persons having special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art, cooperative movement, and social services to fill the vacancies in the Legislative Council under the “Governor’s quota”.
The petitioners, in their petitions, contended that the Governor’s decision was borne out of a lack of “personal satisfaction” and not due to any ambiguity in the recommendation itself, which was arbitrary — and therefore illegal.
They said the order passed by the Governor was “mala fide, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in excess of her jurisdiction…”
They added: “The Governor rejected the petitioner’s nomination not due to any ambiguity in the resolution passed by the government, but due to lack of personal satisfaction which is arbitrary, highhanded, and tainted with malice and therefore illegal and unconstitutional.”
They also objected to the Governor rejecting the decision outright without even seeking any clarification from the Council of Ministers and asking if there were any adverse reports.
It was also contended that the Governor used “special achievements” as a benchmark to gauge the capabilities of the petitioners, whereas it found no mention in Article 171(5) of the Constitution.
Article 171(5) specifically stipulates that a person with “special knowledge” or “practical experience” is eligible to be nominated.
The petitioners contended that it was strange that the Governor, without conducting any background checks or having any information regarding the nominated candidates, rejected the nominations.
“The said conclusion was bereft of any material before her office (and) can only be recognised as… extraneous considerations without any good reasons and therefore is manifestly arbitrary and also indicates a malicious personal agenda of the Hon’ble Governor who was an ex-president of a rival central party and the same also calls for a judicial review of her actions,” the plea stated.
The petitioners also contended that the Governor sought to review an official recommendation made by the chief minister and Council of Ministers, which was a departure from the established and accepted way as the Constitution did not confer any powers to raise questions and satisfy herself on the methodology and considerations made by the Cabinet.
They added that the actions of the Governor, in rejecting the recommendations, violated the fundamental rights granted to the nominated candidates under Part III of the Constitution.
On the question of maintainability of the petitions, the following arguments have been set out in the petition:
