Supreme Court issues notice to concerned respondents on Himachal Pradesh government’s plea

Concerned respondents were notified by the Supreme Court on Friday about the Himachal Pradesh Government’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to revoke the appointment of six chief parliamentary secretaries.

The top court also said that no further proceedings regarding the Himachal HC ruling on the disqualification of MLAs nominated as CPS will take place till the next hearing date.

Justice Sanjay Kumar and Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s bench also said unequivocally that no further appointments will be made and that doing so would be illegal. The issue was also linked to other similar petitions by the highest court.

In light of paragraph 50 of the contested Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling, the top court declared that no further proceedings would take place until the next hearing date. The highest court also said during the hearing that, generally speaking, it would not permit disqualification when it accepts an appeal.

Six chief parliamentary secretaries have had their appointments revoked by the HP High Court. Accordingly, protection granted to such an appointment to the office of Chief Parliamentary Secretary/or Parliamentary Secretary as per Section 3 with Clause (d) of Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Members (Removal of Disqualifications) Act, 1971 is also declared illegal and unconstitutional, and thus, claim of such protection under above referred Section 3(d) is inconsequential,” the Himachal Pradesh High Court stated in its paragraph 50. Natural repercussions and legal ramifications that will immediately follow in line with the law.”

The state government was represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. The HP government emphasized the legal ramifications in the petition submitted via attorney Sugandha Anand, stating that it would cause political instability since the six parliamentary secretaries, who are also members of the Legislative Assembly, are likely to be disqualified.

“That a constitutional court should not have dared to declare a provision of another Act unconstitutional while determining the validity of a specific Act, as this was not a matter of agreement between the parties.” The HP Government sought that the contested ruling be delayed and overturned on this particular issue.

It should be mentioned that certain state-level positions have the status and benefits of cabinet ministers, but they do not carry out any of the duties that ministers are expected to carry out under Articles 163 or 164 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary who does not carry out any ministerial duties under Article 164(1A) is unconstitutional. It should be mentioned that the opposition leader in the state of Himachal Pradesh is given the title of cabinet minister but does not carry out any ministerial duties. The HP government said in the petition that none of the arguments put out by the petitioner in this regard are addressed in the contested ruling.