The Supreme Court on Monday sought response from the Centre and the state governments on the controversial issue of appointment of tainted persons as ministers, which also included a question whether the President or governor have a residuary power to refuse oath to them.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran granted four weeks to them to file their reply and said since the matter has already been referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench, the questions raised by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae in the matter, will be addressed by it.
Dwivedi said going through the affidavits and replies filed by Centre and some state governments, several other important questions of constitutional law arise which also include whether the oath of office subscribed by the President and prime minister by necessary implication oblige them not to appoint chargesheeted persons as ministers.
Further, whether the prime minister and chief minister's discretion to appoint ministers prevents the court from emphasising fitness to office and eliminating those charged with crimes amounting to moral turpitude be not appointed as ministers in interest of democracy and on account of oath to do right to all manner of people.
The amicus curiae has raised nine such questions to assist the court on a public interest litigation, which has challenged induction of members of Parliament with criminal background as ministers in the Union Cabinet.
The court, which earlier had maintained that the question of tainted ministers was an issue of public importance, also asked Solicitor General G E Vahanvati to take instruction from the government whether it could file in a sealed cover the recommendations of the N N Vohra Committee, which went into the issue of criminalisation of politics.
The Bench said it would like the solicitor general to give some information on the Vohra Committee recommendations.
The Centre, which has defended induction of "tainted ministers" in the Union Cabinet, on the ground that there are no judicially manageable standards for determining who can be treated as an accused or rather a tainted person till the conviction, was on Monday asked to file an affidavit in response to the questions put forward by the amicus curiae.
Among the questions on which the Centre and the state governments have to respond is whether laying down of parameters on the issue amount to interfering with the Parliamentary perogrative and presumption of innocence attaching to the accused in trials has any relevance to fitness for office of minister or other offices under the Constitution.
Further, they have to dwell on the provision of the Representation of People's Act prescribing the qualifications and disqualifications only for becoming member of Houses or whether they have any relevance as threshold and final entitlement to be a minister without reference to criminal charges.
The question said if such was the case can MPs continuing by virtue of Section 4 of the RPA be also fit to be appointed minister and can those whose convictions are suspended by courts and Election Commisison under Section 11 be appointed as minister.