In a pivotal ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court bench comprising Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, recently struck down the appointments of six Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPS), kindling an intense debate in political and administrative circles. This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary's crucial role as a guardian of constitutional integrity, with profound implications for governance, fiscal accountability, and the limits of executive authority. By challenging political expediency, the verdict sets a precedent with the potential to reshape governance practices across states in the country.
Judicial Context and Legal Precedents
The High Court's decision aligns with prior rulings from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, including Punjab and Haryana (2009), Rajasthan (2018), and Guwahati (2017), which struck down similar CPS appointments. These verdicts collectively accentuate the constitutional limitations on such positions, emphasizing the judiciary's resolve to uphold the 91st Amendment, which caps the size of the council of ministers at 15% of a state's legislative assembly.
Himachal government’s Advocate General, Anup Kumar Rattan has, however, defended the state's stance, claiming that CPS appointees would not lose their Vidhan Sabha membership and revealing that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Supreme Court which will come up for hearing today. He cited a precedent where CPS appointments in Assam were quashed without disqualifying MLAs. However, the BJP has countered this by filing a caveat in the Supreme Court, demanding the disqualification of the ousted CPS. This raises critical constitutional question about whether the High Court’s ruling will apply retrospectively, potentially costing the CPS their legislative seats. The SC will settle an important issue of high court’s ruling which says “Natural consequences and legal Implications whereof which shall follow forthwith in accordance With law.”
Political Implications: Curtailing Executive Overreach
The verdict deals a significant blow to the state's executive authority, serving as a judicial check against the misuse of CPS appointments to consolidate power. The current Sukhu-led Congress government is not the first to make such appointments. Previous state governments including the BJP's Dhumal government in 2013 and Congress' Virbhadra Singh-led government, had similarly used CPS inducement to reward loyalists. However, the previous Jai Ram Thakur government refrained from such appointments.
By invalidating these positions, the court has disrupted an informal practice of extending ministerial influence, setting a precedent for other states. This decision could prompt states to rethink similar strategies, particularly where CPS appointments serve to manage internal party conflicts. In Himachal, the ruling deprives the government of a tool used to appease factions and reward loyalists, potentially intensifying intra-party challenges.
Administrative Impact: Streamlining Governance
The removal of CPS positions simplifies administrative structures by eliminating an unnecessary tier of power. With fewer actors involved in governance, the focus now shifts entirely to ministers and bureaucrats, which could enhance efficiency and accountability. By reinforcing the separation between legislative and executive roles, the decision strengthens constitutional principles and promotes a clearer governance framework.
Fiscal Ramifications: A Boon for the State Exchequer
CPS appointments, though politically expedient, impose a financial burden on the state through salaries, allowances, and operational expenses. Nullifying these roles offers a chance for fiscal consolidation in a state grappling with a severe financial crisis. Himachal Pradesh, already struggling under mounting debt and limited central assistance, can divert these funds to spend on critical sectors like health, education, and infrastructure instead of incurring wasteful expenditures on the white elephants, CPS, with little contributions in the system. This aspect of the verdict resonates with economic conservatives and taxpayers, offering a blueprint for states facing similar fiscal constraints.
Legal Implications: A Broader Judicial Oversight
The Himachal High Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary's role in preserving constitutional integrity. By nullifying CPS appointments, it reaffirms the relevance of the 91st Amendment and sets a legal precedent discouraging future governments from circumventing constitutional limitations. The ruling could inspire similar legal challenges in other states, further curbing political dissipations and immoderations.
This judgment also strengthens public confidence in the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional principles, ensuring that political convenience does not override legal and fiscal accountability. The public at large is happy with the court’s decision as such appointments put a huge burden on state’s exchequer especially when Himachal struggles to pay salaries to employees and pension to retirees.
Public Perception and Political Fallout
Experts say that public opinion has extensively welcomed the verdict as a corrective measure against political overreach. By emphasizing constitutional propriety and fiscal prudence, the court has sent a clear message that governance must prioritize the public welfare over political expediency.
Main Opposition in Himachal, BJP, may capitalize on this situation, framing the invalidated appointments as a failure of the ruling government to adhere to constitutional norms.
Historical and Constitutional Context
The concept of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries has long been controversial. While intended to provide administrative support, these appointments often blur the separation of powers between the executive and legislature. The 91st Amendment sought to address such overlaps by limiting the size of ministerial councils, a provision frequently sidestepped by state governments.
In Himachal Pradesh, the High Court’s verdict has given a blatant and clear legal signal that such appointments undermine constitutional safeguards.
The Road Ahead: Legislative Reform or Status Quo?
The Himachal High Court’s ruling could spur nationwide legislative compulsion not to formalize role akin to CPS within constitutional boundaries. In this complex scenario embedded in the constitution's mandatory provision, some over ambitious states might choose to avoid such appointments altogether thereby respecting judiciary over political appeasement. This could pave the way for a more transparent and accountable system of governance, free from the ambiguities of quasi-ministerial roles.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s verdict and other identical judgements including SC nullifying CPS appointments marks a watershed moment in the interplay between the executive and judiciary. By curbing unconstitutional practices, the courts have not only reinforced constitutional principles but also provided a template for more fiscally and administratively responsible governance.
While the rulings pose immediate challenges for the state governments, they also offer a long-term opportunity to redefine governance in line with constitutional values. As other states watch closely, these judgments stand as a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding India’s democratic framework.
(K.S. Tomar is a political analyst and strategic affairs columnist based in Shimla.)
