- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dhronamraju Satyanarayana v. N.T Rama Rao And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto, or a writ by way of information in the nature of quo warranto, to declare that the first respondent, the Chief Minister of the State (Sri N. T. Rama Rao), had forfeited his right to continue in office. The petitioner relied on allegations set out in an affidavit. The petition invoked the High Court's high prerogative writ jurisdiction (the opinion refers to the jurisdiction under "art. 276" as the context for the question described in paragraph 2).
Counsel appearing included the petitioner's counsel Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, the Attorney General Sri K. Parasaran (who assisted the Court), and Sri N. A. Palkhivala for the Chief Minister. The Advocate General represented the State (second respondent). The Court heard detailed submissions and considered a range of allegations against the Chief Minister, including alleged tax evasion, violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, corrupt land transactions, manipulations of statutory exemptions and planning controls, alleged payment of bribes, and alleged kickbacks. The Court did not decide the question of locus standi, indicating it was unnecessary to do so for the decision it reached.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of its high prerogative writ jurisdiction (as described in the petition), would issue a writ of quo warranto or a writ in the nature of quo warranto declaring that the Chief Minister, duly appointed and sworn in under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 164 of the Constitution, had forfeited his right to continue in office on the grounds and allegations set out in the affidavit.
- Whether a court may declare that a Chief Minister has forfeited the right to hold office in the absence of an allegation and proof that he has incurred a disqualification prescribed by the Constitution or by law enacted by Parliament (this issue was squarely raised by the Attorney General and considered by the Court).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments (Sri S. Ramachandra Rao)
- The charges against the Chief Minister were of such gravity as to "shock the conscience" of the Court and warranted a declaration that he had forfeited his right to hold office.
- The Court has the power to shape relief to further the ends of justice and should not be deterred by procedural hurdles such as locus standi or questions of justiciability.
- The allegations (including alleged tax evasion and other misconduct) remained unrebutted despite a counter-affidavit filed by the Chief Minister.
- Petitioner relied on precedent (the Rowjee decision that led to the resignation of Sri N. Sanjeeva Reddy) as a persuasive guide that adverse judicial observations may require a Chief Minister to resign.
- Specifically, the petitioner focused on an alleged confession of large-scale income- and wealth-tax evasion and argued that even if penal consequences were avoided under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Tax Act, 1976, the moral right to continue in office was forfeited.
Assisting Counsel / Attorney General (Sri K. Parasaran)
- Court should not normally issue a writ of quo warranto declaring the Chief Minister had forfeited his right to continue in office unless it was alleged and proved that he had incurred a disqualification as prescribed by the Constitution or by law made by Parliament.
- Supported this view by reference to several High Court decisions (identified in the opinion) which were said to support the principle that such relief is inappropriate absent constitutional/statutory disqualification.
First Respondent / Chief Minister's Arguments (Sri N. A. Palkhivala)
- Substantially concurred with the Attorney General's view on the legal and constitutional position: courts are not usually justified in issuing a writ to remove a Chief Minister unless constitutional or statutory disqualification is established.
- Characterized the dispute as political rather than public interest litigation; contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
Second Respondent / State (Advocate General)
- Contended that the petition for quo warranto was not maintainable in law (stand taken by the Advocate General for the State).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| K. M. Chandy vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai (Full Bench, Kerala High Court) | Referred to by the Attorney General to support the proposition that courts would not normally issue a writ declaring a Chief Minister had forfeited his right to continue in office unless disqualification under the Constitution or statutory law was alleged and proved. | The Court recorded that this decision was cited by the Attorney General in support of the general principle limiting judicial interference; the Court accepted the limitation on judicial relief in the circumstances of this petition. |
| K. Sukumaran vs. Union of India (Division Bench, Kerala High Court) | Followed the reasoning of the K. M. Chandy decision as cited by the Attorney General to the same effect (limitation on issuing quo warranto against a Chief Minister absent constitutional/statutory disqualification). | The Court noted this decision as a follow-on authority relied upon by the Attorney General; it formed part of the body of authority the Court considered in concluding that the Governor's exclusive power must be respected. |
| Ramachandran vs. M. G. Ramachandran (Single Bench, Madras High Court) | Referenced by the Attorney General as another authority supporting the proposition that courts should not grant a quo warranto in respect of the Chief Minister unless disqualification under the Constitution or statute is established. | The Court acknowledged the reference to this authority as part of the Attorney General's submission reinforcing the limit on judicial remedy in such matters. |
| C. S. Rowjee vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (decision referenced as leading to resignation of Sri N. Sanjeeva Reddy) | Referred to by the petitioner for the proposition that adverse judicial observations in certain cases have led to the resignation of a Chief Minister (the opinion cites paragraphs 19 and 20 of that decision in support of the petitioner's argument). | The Court noted the petitioner's reliance on this precedent (the "Sanijeeva Reddy" outcome) but observed that the call for resignation in such democratic traditions is a matter for the political actor himself rather than for judicial compulsion in this case; the Court did not order resignation or deletion of office based on that precedent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in multiple steps grounded in constitutional text and democratic principles as reflected in the opinion:
- Constitutional Text: The Court began by noting Article 164(1) — that the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor and that ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor — and explored the constitutional allocation of appointment and removal powers.
- Types of Disqualification: The Court observed that disqualification for holding the office may exist at threshold (for example, under Article 191 or if the Governor had not administered the requisite oaths under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 164) or may arise later (for example, by ceasing to be a member of the legislature for six consecutive months under clause (4) of Article 164). It found that the petitioner had not established that the Chief Minister was an usurper of office without title when he assumed office.
- Scope of Judicial Relief: The Court accepted the principle advanced by the Attorney General that a writ of quo warranto to declare the forfeiture of the Chief Minister's right to hold office would normally only be appropriate where a constitutional or statutory disqualification has been alleged and proved. The Court emphasized that if assumption or continuation in office is established to be in clear violation of the Constitution or any law of Parliament, a declaration could be given — but that was not shown here.
- Functional Separation and Governor's Discretion: The Court stressed respect for the limits of functional division as an essential democratic value, noting that the Governor's discretion to remove the Chief Minister (invoking the "pleasure" doctrine) is an executive function vested by the Constitution. The Court explained that the Governor is the appointing and terminating authority and that courts, in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, should not encroach upon the sphere exclusively preserved for the Governor.
- Practical and Political Considerations: The Court recognized the Governor may, in rare and extraordinary situations, properly invoke the pleasure doctrine for public good and state interest, but such instances are few and the exercise of that power requires statesmanship. The Court also noted that moral or political calls for resignation normally emanate from within the political system (e.g., the Chief Minister or the electorate) rather than being compelled by the Court.
- Limits of Judicial Activism: While acknowledging the role of judicial activism in modern jurisprudence, the Court cautioned that activism has limits; assuming limitless jurisdiction by the judiciary could create functional anarchy. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that it should not grant the writ relief sought because the power to remove the Chief Minister rested exclusively with the Governor unless a constitutional or statutory disqualification had been shown.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto (or a writ in the nature of quo warranto) declaring that the Chief Minister had forfeited his right to continue in office was dismissed. The Court held that, on the facts and law presented, no writ of quo warranto as prayed for would issue from the Court because the power to terminate the tenure of the Chief Minister is vested solely in the Governor under Article 164(1) of the Constitution and the petitioner had not established a constitutional or statutory disqualification.
Direct Effect on the Parties: The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs; the Chief Minister remained in office as a matter of law pending any action by the Governor or any other constitutionally authorized process.
Broader Implications: The opinion primarily focused on the allocation of constitutional authority and the limits of judicial intervention in executive appointments/removals. The Court did not purport to expand judicial power to remove a Chief Minister in the absence of constitutionally or statutorily defined disqualification. No broader new precedent beyond the application of these principles in this matter is articulated in the opinion.
(1) Article 164 (1) of the constitution of india lays down :
"the chief minister shall be appointed by the governor and the other ministers shall be appointed by the governor on the advice of the chief minister, and the ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the governor".
(2) Whether the high court in exercise of its high prerogative writjurisdiction under art. 276 of the constitution would issue a writ of quo warranto or a writ by way of information in the nature of quo warranto declaring that the chief minister of the state, duly elected to the legislative assembly, appointed and sworn in by the governor in accordance with clauses (1) and (3) of art. 164 of the constitution, has forfeited his right to continue in office on the grounds raised and the allegations made in the affidavit, is the important constitutional issue that arises for decision in this writ petition.
(3) The submission made by sri s. Ramachandra rao, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, was that the gravity of the charges levelled against the first respondent - chief minister, sri n. T. Rama rao, was so serious as to shock the conscience of the court; this court which was entitled to mould the relief in such manner as was most suited for furthering the ends of justice should not hesitate to declare that he (the chief minister) had forfeited his right to hold the office ; and no technical plea, either of locus standi or of justiciability, should be allowed to stand in the way of a decision being rendered on the merits of the case. He also added that the charges levelled against the chief minister remained unrebutted in spite of his having filed a counter - affidavit.
(4) Sri k. Parasaran, the learned attorney general, who appeared to assist the court at our request, after having made an enlightening analysis of the constitutional scheme, expressed his opinion that normally courts would not be justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto declaring that the chief minister had forfeited his right to continue in office unless it was alleged and proved that he had incurred a disqualification as prescribed by the constitution itself or any law made by the parliament. To support his view, he referred us to the full bench decision of the kerala high court in k. M. Chandy vs. R. Balakrishna pillai #1 which has been followed by a division bench of the kerala high court in k. Sukumaran vs. Union of india #2 and a single bench of the madras high court in ramachandran vs. M. G. Ranachandran. #3
(5) On behalf of the first respondent - chief minister, we have had the advantage of hearing the eminent counsel, sri n. A. Palkhivala, who substantially concurred with the views expressed by the learned attorney general in regard to the legal and constitutional position to which reference has already been made in paragraph 4 (supra). In was also his contention that what we were concerned with here was purely a political interest lifigation, not a public interest litigation ; and that neither the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition nor this court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The learned advocate general, who appeared for the second respondent, the government of andhra pradesh, had also taken the stand that the petition for the issue of quo warranto was not maintainable in law. On behalf of the three intervenors, sri k. Ramakrishna reddy, sri m. Narasiah and sri k r. K. Vara prasad advanced the arguments.
(6) We do not consider it necessary to decide the question of locus standi in this writ petition, in the nature of the decision we propose to take in the matter.
(7) Tne disqualification for the chief minister to hold the office may exist at the threshold, for instance, on account of any of the disqualifications enumerated in article 191 of the constitution or when the governor had not administered to him oaths of office - and secrecy before he entered upon his office as required under clauses (1) and (3) of art. 164 of the constitution. He might incur disqualification later, for instance, on account of his not having been a member of the legislature of the state for any period of six consecutive months in terms of clause (4) of art. 164 ; and that might result in his forfeiting bis right to continue in office in this case, as far as we could see, the petitioner has not established that the first respondent was an usurper of office without title - or right at the time when he assumed the office. If at all, therefore, the petitioner could only endeavour to establish that after having become the chief minister, he had forfeited his right to continue in office. In case the assumption or continuation in office is established to be in clear violation of the provisions of the constitution or any law made by the parliament, this court would be justified in giving a declaration to that effect.
(8) Ordinarily, the governor allows, or may have to tolerate, the continuation in office of the chief minister so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly unless, in the meanwhile, he suffered any specific disqualification for holding that office. This is so in keeping with the well - established democratic values and conventions, in spite of the fact that art. 164 (1) of the constitution permits the chief minister to continue in office only during the pleasure of the governor. The governor might nevertheless face extraordinary situations where he would be constrained, for promoting public good and for safeguarding the interests of the state, to invoke the pleasure doctrine and terminate the tenure of office of the chief minister, though such instances would be few and rare. There being many imponderables, the circumstances under which a chief minister or a minister would render himself unfit to hold the office and is liable to be removed from the post could not be exhaustively enumerated in the constitution, or for that matter, even in any law made by the parliament. Presumably, it is for that reason the discretion in the matter is vested exclusively in a high dignitary like the governor by the constitution. No governor could, however, afford to exercise that high prerogative in a casual manner without foreseeing the future, the political overtones of the momentous decision and the other repercussions. Often than not, it is a complex question, not merely a legal issue ; and the decision should reflect the worldly wisdom and statesmanship of the person who, by the constitution, is charged with the onerous responsibility in the matter.
(9) Respect for the limits of functional division being the essence of democracy, the courts would not, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under art. 226 of the constitution, encroach upon the sphere exclusively preserved for the governor under the constitution. The question is : is there any authority for this court to should hat the charges, if found true, would render the chief minister permanently disqualified ? if this court has no such power, in terms of the constitution or any other law, it would be futile for us to pass an order which could be defeated by the governor passing another order appointing him to the office again. So far as the ministers, including the chief minister, are concerned, the appointing authority is the governor. Under the constitution, the power to terminate the tenure of office of the ministers also is vested in the governor, not in any other authority. To the growth and development of our modern jurisprudence, judicial activism has a vital role to play ; but it has its limits and limitations also. If the court assumes for itself limitlessness of jurisdiction, it might lead to a state of functional anarchy, which has to be avoided in the larger public interest itself,
(10) The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to part f of the affidavit (pp. 153 to 175) containing extracts from various judgments of the supreme court and of this court, and submitted that the observations and adverse comments therein amounted to severe strictures against the chief minister and his government. In this context, he reminded us of the precedent of sri n. Sanjeeva reddy, the then chief minister of this state having resigned in deference to the observations made by the supreme court for the technical reason that he had not specifically denied certain allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner (vide paragraphs 19 and 20 of the decision in c. 5. Rowjee vs. State of andhra pradesh #4 he would submit that if this healthy precedent set by sri sanjeeva reddy was any guideline, in this case, the chief minister ought to have felt the compulsion to resign not once, but several times; but he had stuck to his position without being sensitive to public opinion or any code of morality.
(11) The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his lengthy argument, frequently pat to us the question whether the chief minister had not forfeited his right to continue in office at least from the year 1985 after his confession that he had evaded income - tax and wealth - tax to the tune of colossal amounts. Reference was made to the declaration alleged to have been made by the chief minister, sri rama rao, of an income of rs 7,50,000 in his individual capacity and wealth to the tune of rs. 51. 50 lacks on behalf of his joint family, with respect to which he had evaded tax. This declaration is stated to have been made when he was holding the office of chief minister. According to the learned counsel, in the file relating to the chief minister, former union finance minister had on 6 - 6 1985 minuted that his (sri rama rao's) was a case of clear evasion of tax. He forcefully contended that under section 11 of the voluntary disclosure of income and wealth tax act, 1976, the chief minister might escape the penal consequences, but that did not and should not mean that he did not forfeit bis moral right to continue in the high office of the chief minister of the state, particularly in view of the fact that our people adored such dignitaries as idols of worship placing so much of confidence in their integrity and sense of fairplay. He reiterated that the affidavit filed by him was conspicuous by the absence of any denial of the truth and correctness of the allegation made in the affidavit of the petitioner that he was guilty of the high crime of evasion of tax. According to him, going by the dictum laid down by the supreme court in the decision which led to the resignation of sri n. Sanjeeva reddy, it was legitimate for the court to draw an inference that the allegations in the affidavit with respect to the evasion of tax by the first respondent - chief minister were true and correct. His question to us was whether the chief minister who was a self - proclaimed tax evader would have the moral courage to enforce taxation laws in the state or to take action against the persons who evaded or defaulted the payment of tax.
(12) We take it that the question put to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rather addressed to the chief minister himself than to us. Even accepting that healthy democratic traditions demand the resignation of the chief minister not only when he forfeits the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly but also on his own accord when it is shown that he is guilty of moral turpitude, and was, therefore, unworthy of holding the exalted office, the call for action has to come from within ; it is not a matter of compulsion from outside. The chief minister is accountable to the electorate who holds a watching brief to prevent mis - performance and mis - rule by their elected representatives. It is true, the moral and ethical standards might differ from person to person. What might shock the conscience of one person might not cause even a stir in the mind of another. It is for the chief minister himself to make up his mind in regard to the path he should follow in the face of these allegations. No gratuitous advice, much less any specific direction, from this court is necessary.
(13) The other serious allegations to which our attention had been drawn include, to mention a few :
(a) the chief minister was guilty of violating the provisions of foreign exchange regulation act by being instrumental in the tirumala tirupati devasthanam, functioning under the control of the government, sanctioning and disbursing rs 60 lakhs to the temples situated abroads, by demand drafts on various banks without the sanction of the reserve bank of india and without following the procedure under the law. (b) there was corruption in the purchase of 22 acres of land in gaddiannaram ; the land was bought for huda at a cost of rs. 15 lakhs per acre while the market value was only rs. 3 to 4 lakhs. (c) he had acquired over 1. 75 lakhs sq. Yards of land in hyderabad city worth about rs. 35 crores in the name of his various family members by manipulating exemptions from the urban land ceiling act. For the 1,800 sq. Yards he obtained from the government, he did not pay the price at rs. 40 per sq. Yard as determined in 1976, but managed to get it reduced to rs. 20 per sq. Yard after he became the chief minister. (d) by his manipulations, government issued notications, purported to be under section 19 - a of the a. P. Entertainment tax act, exempting from payment of entertainment tax in respect of large amounts relating to the cinema theatres owned by him and his family members. (e; he has caused the master plan for the urban development to be altered in respect ol the land use of ramakrishna studio several times to promote the interests of his sons. (f) in connection with the land acquisition compensation in nirmal, sri chandrababu naidu, the son - in - law of the chief minister and the general secretary of the telugu desam party was paid a bribe of rs. 3. 5 lakhs as is clear from the letter of the tdp m. L. A. , dr. Venugopala chary, which was addressed to one sarpanch who paid the bribe to the m. L. A. , and who in his turn passed on the bribe amount to the tdp general secretary. (g) that orders for the issuance of a letter of intent for making cordless telephones were given to his son - in - law, sri nareen of coimbatore, in violation of norms and procedures. (h) a japanese firm, hitachi, had offered rs. 40 crores kickback to him. We do not, however, propose to go into these and other allegations made in the writ petition.
(14) We have no doubt in our mind that, whatever be the merits of the allegations made, if and when found appropriate, the power to terminate the tenure of office of the chief minister being vested solely in the governor, under article 164 (1) of the constitution, no writ of quo warranto as prayed for would issue from this court. In that view, the writ petition is dismissed, without any order as to costs.
(15) We place on record our warm appreciation for the service rendered by all the counsel who participated in the proceedings. Sri k. Parasaran the learned attorney general who, in deference to our request appeared to assist the court, had practically sat through the whole proceedings unmindful of all the inconveniences. He was ably assisted by sri gopal subrahmanyam. We have greatly profited also from the arguments of sri n. A. Patkhivala, the eminent jurist, who appeared for the first respondent - chief minister. The learned advocate general also had put forward the case of the second respondent, the government of andhra pradesh, forcefully. We are greatly impressed by the remarkable industry put in by sri s. Ramchandra rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in projecting the case of the petitioner.
Alert