Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Central Government nominations to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly without mandatory concurrence of the elected territorial government. Neither the governing law nor an established constitutional convention required it. Nominated members could vote on budgets and no-confidence motions. The appeals were dismissed, subject to deletion of all recommendations in paragraph 5 of the High Court judgment.
Issues
- Whether Central nomination required the Administrator to act on territorial ministerial advice or obtain the elected government’s concurrence.
- Whether federalism or a constitutional convention required consultation.
- Whether nominated members could vote on budgets and no-confidence motions and whether the High Court’s recommendations should stand.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(3), Government of Union Territories Act, 1963The nomination power belonged to the Central Government; no mandatory territorial concurrence or consultation was prescribed. (¶¶ 21, 26, 28, 33, 54, 87, 88)
- Section 3(8)(b), including (iii), General Clauses Act, 1897The inclusive reference to an Administrator acting within delegated authority did not displace the President; no relevant nomination delegation was shown. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 21)
- Rules 4(2) and 48, Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry, 1963The territorial-government business provisions did not govern this Central Government nomination function. (¶¶ 22, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Section 12(1) and (4), Government of Union Territories Act, 1963Assembly members included elected and nominated members; the statutory voting and quorum language did not exclude nominees or bar them from budgets and no-confidence motions. (¶¶ 92, 93, 94)
Held
- For the nomination power, Central Government meant the President, with business conducted under the applicable Central allocation and transaction rules. The Administrator had not been shown to possess delegated authority to make these nominations. (¶¶ 15, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Nomination was Central, rather than Puducherry government, business. Territorial Rules 4(2) and 48 did not impose ministerial consultation on that function. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 33)
- The constitutionally authorised scheme allowed a partly nominated legislature and conferred the nomination power on the Centre. Exercising that power without territorial concurrence did not violate the asserted federal principles. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54)
- Prior nominations did not establish a uniform practice accepted as binding. The records failed the convention tests, although the Centre could voluntarily obtain recommendations or names from the Chief Minister or Administrator. (¶¶ 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88)
- All paragraph 5 recommendations in the High Court judgment were set aside. Existing business rules and statutory qualifications governed; the Court did not prohibit competent authorities from making further lawful procedural rules. (¶¶ 89, 90, 91)
- Nominated and elected persons were Assembly members. The statute supplied no exception excluding nominees from voting on budgets or no-confidence motions, and no such restriction could be added by interpretation. (¶¶ 92, 93, 94)
Result
Appeals dismissed subject to deletion of all recommendations in paragraph 5 of the High Court judgment. Nominations and the stated voting rights upheld; parties to bear their own costs.