S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab

PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Purposive Construction discusses the importance of the purport and object of the act. It also states that a statute must be read in its entirety and the purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying principles of purposive construction. A purposive construction promoting the object of the enactment but not extending its sweep beyond the frontiers within which it was intended to operate must be adopted, keeping in view that a construction which exempts a person from its operation must be preferred to the one which includes him in it, in view of the penal nature of the statute. It is normally based on three components namely, language, purpose and discretion. It is the duty of the courts to accept a construction which promotes the object of the legislation and also prevents its possible abuse even though the mere possibility of abuse of a provision does not affect its Constitutionality or construction. Abuse has to be checked by constant vigilance and monitoring of individual cases and this can be done by screening of the cases by suitable machinery at a high level. Further, Purposive construction can only be resorted to when the language of a provision is capable of more than one interpretation. Where literal construction or plain meaning may cause hardship, futility, absurdity or uncertainty, the purposive or contextual construction may be preferred to arrive at a more just, reasonable and sensible result.

{1.12, Purposive Construction, by Avatar Singh}

FACTS

Respondent 2 was appointed as a Minister of Punjab on the advice of the then Chief Minister. At the time of his appointment as a Minister, he was not a member of the Legislative Assembly in Punjab. He failed to get himself elected as a member of the Legislature within a period of six months and eventually handed out his resignation to the Council of Ministers. The Respondent no. 2 was elected for the second time during the term of the same legislature and the Appellant filed a petition seeking writ of quo warranto against the Respondent 2. The High Court dismissed the said petition in limine and eventually a special leave petition was filed by the Appellant.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current scenario is whether a non-member, who fails to get elected during the period of six consecutive months, after he is appointed as a Minister or while a minister has ceased to be a legislator, be reappointed as a Minister, without being elected to the Legislature after the expiry of the period of six consecutive months.

RULES

• Article 164(1) of the Constitution states that the Governor shall appoint the Chief Minister exercising his own discretion, according to established practice and conventions. All other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister.

• Article 164(4) of the Constitution states that if a non-member is appointed a Minister, he would cease to be a Minister unless in a short period of six consecutive months from the date of his appointment he gets elected to the Legislature. This is an exception to Article 164(2) (collective responsibility).

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• This Hon'ble court, including its Constitution Bench, has consistently interpreted Article 163, 164(1), and Article 164(4) such that a person who isn't a member of the legislature maybe appointed as a minister for a period of six months but if he fails to get elected within that period of time, he shall cease to be a minister at the expiry of that time period.

• The court observed that the absence of the expression “from amongst members of the Legislature” in Article 164(1) was indicative that the appointment of a non-legislator was governed by Article 164(4). It was not an enabling provision for the appointment of the non-legislator, even for a short duration. It was actually a disqualification or restriction for a non-member who was appointed as a minister, to continue in office without getting himself elected within a period of six consecutive months.

• The court observed through the positions prevailing in England, Australia, and Canada that the essential component of a system of representative government is that the ministers are chosen out of the members of the Legislature. The framers of the Constitution did not have the intention that a non-legislator should be repeatedly appointed as a minister for a term of six months each time without getting elected, as such a practice strikes at the very root of parliamentary democracy.

• The court further observed that the sequence and scheme of the Article 164 clearly suggests that ideally, every Minister must be a member of the Legislature at the time of his appointment. The "privilege" of continuing as a minister for six months without being an elected member was only a one-time slot for the individual concerned during the term of the Legislative Assembly concerned. It exhausts itself if the individual is unable to get himself elected within the said period. This privilege is not present upon the Chief Minister and therefore he cannot reappoint the individual as a minister without getting him elected first.

• This Hon'ble court stated that the framers of the Constitution have used the expression “six consecutive months”, implying that the period of six months must run continuously and not even intermittently.

• It was further observed by this court that the Constitutional provisions are required to be read and interpreted with an object-oriented approach (Purposive Construction). The Constitution must not be construed in a narrow sense and the terms, even if they are general, must have their true meaning appreciated considering the context in which they are being used and the purpose which they are serving.

• It was therefore concluded by this Hon'ble court that it would be subverting the Constitution to permit a non-legislator to be appointed a Minister repeatedly for a term of “six consecutive months”, without him getting himself elected first. The practice would be derogatory to the Constitutional scheme, improper, undemocratic, and invalid. Article 164(4) is at best an exception to the normal rule and norm of only legislators being permitted to be appointed as a minister. This exception must be strictly construed and sparingly used.