Parliamentary Secretaries Act 2006 Is Beyond Legislative Competence Of State Legislature: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the law on MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), saying that the H.P. Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances, Powers, Privileges & Amenities) Act, 2006 is beyond the legislative competence of State Legislature.
The Court was dealing with a batch of Petitions in which the sole question for consideration was the legislative competence of the Legislature of Himachal Pradesh to make the aforesaid Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed, “While it is true that the Court is required to examine whether a litigation is really in public interest or to advance some other interest in the garb of public interest, at the same time, a public interest litigation cannot be thrown out only because the petitioner belongs to a rival political party.”
Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Ankush Dass Sood represented the Petitioners while Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave, Ajay Sharma, and Additional Advocate General (AAG) Navlesh Verma represented the Respondents.
By virtue of the H.P. Parliamentary Secretaries Act, 2006, an office of a Parliamentary Secretary for a Member of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the State of Himachal Pradesh was created. The Petitioners were the MLAs of H.P. who belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The State was sued through the Chief Secretary to the Government of H.P., and the other Respondents were the Secretary to the Governor and Principal Secretary Finance.
The Deputy Chief Minister was arrayed as party as his appointment was assailed but during the pendency of the Petition, his appointment was not pressed and consequently, his name was deleted from the array of parties. The other parties were the Chief Parliamentary Secretaries.
The High Court in the above regard, said, “Persons with political affiliations are, as much entitled to file a public interest litigation as any other person. Whether the litigation is bona fide or not is a different issue which has to be examined by the Court on a case-to-case basis, having regard to the nature of the complaint before it.”
The Court held and declared all subsequent actions, including the appointment of Respondents to be illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab-initio. It added that since the impugned Act is void ab initio, therefore, Respondents are usurpers of public office right from their inception and thus, their continuance in the office, based on their illegal and unconstitutional appointment, is completely impermissible in law.
“Accordingly, from now onwards, they shall cease to be holder of the office(s) of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries with all the consequences. … Accordingly, protection granted to such 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. Natural consequences and legal implications whereof shall follow forthwith in accordance with law”, it further held.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petitions and directed the AAG to convey and transmit the information of passing the Judgment forthwith to enable the Chief Secretary and all concerned for its immediate implementation.
Cause Title- Satpal Singh Satti & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:11250-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Ankush Dass Sood, Advocates Vir Bahadur Verma, Ankit Dhiman, Prabhas Bajaj, Ragasanan Mohan, Gaurav Chaudhary, Tarun Mehta, Mukul Sharma, and Prajwal Busta.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave, Ajay Sharma, AAG Navlesh Verma, Advocates Ashwani Chawla, Deven Khanna, and Advocate Atharv Sharma.
