Shimla: Twelve BJP MLAs in Himachal Pradesh have moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court to challenge the appointment of a deputy chief minister as well as chief parliamentary secretaries in the Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu-led Congress government.
The BJP has questioned the deputy CM’s appointment on the grounds that his oath violated constitutional provisions.
The appointment of chief parliamentary secretaries, meanwhile, has been challenged as an alleged attempt to beat legislative norms regarding the size of a state’s council of ministers. Similar appointments were cancelled by the high court in 2005. A Congress government led by the late Virbhadra Singh had been in office at the time.
The petitioners include former BJP state president and Una MLA Satpal Singh Satti, former speaker HP Vidhan Sabha and Sulah MLA Vipin Singh Parmar, Shri Naina Devi MLA Randhir Sharma, Churah MLA and former deputy speaker Hansraj.
A high court bench headed by acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan has issued notice to the state government and other respondents, seeking a reply on the petition, and listed the case for hearing on 19 May.
However, the BJP’s petition has come as a surprise to many within the party itself, as it has been appointing deputy CMs in states where it’s in power, the latest being in Maharashtra, where former CM Devendra Fadnavis was appointed to the post last year.
The Congress, meanwhile, has lashed out at the petition, describing it as an “act of vengeance” against Deputy CM Mukesh Agnihotri, saying he played a key role in “throwing the BJP out of power” in Himachal Pradesh.
The BJP’s petition
The Congress took over the reins of the state last December, with Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu becoming the chief minister, and Mukesh Agnihotri, a five-term MLA from Haroli in Una district, the deputy CM.
Agnihotri’s appointment was seen as an attempt to strike a balance, as he is considered close to the Virbhadra family, which has been a prominent player in the state for almost 40 years.
In its petition, the BJP MLAs have argued that the act of creating the “office/post/status” of a deputy chief minister is arbitrary and not authorised under the Constitution.
“Chief minister of Himachal took the oath of office on December 11, 2022 and the respondent no. 4 (Mukesh Agnihotri) took the oath as deputy CM on the same day,” reads the petition, a copy of which is with ThePrint.
Under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the oath-taking of state ministers, a deputy CM cannot be sworn in, the BJP has said. According to the party, he could have been administered the oath as either chief minister or cabinet minister, but not as deputy CM.
“Neither any provision of the Constitution of India nor any statutory enactment nor any executive instruction contains any provision which empowers the state government to create the office/post/status of the deputy chief minister in the state,” the petition reads.
“As the creation of the office/post/status of the deputy chief minister is without any authority of law, the same needs to be declared arbitrary and the creation of the said office/post/status of the deputy chief minister may be set aside.”
It makes a similar argument for the appointment of chief parliamentary secretaries. “It is pertinent to reiterate that the Constitution does not envisage any office of chief parliamentary secretaries under Part VI, Chapter III of the Constitution which deals with the state legislature,” it says.
They have said that these secretaries have been allotted staff, office and other amenities equivalent to a minister’s rank.
The petition also seeks to highlight Chapter II of the Constitution’s Part VI, which deals with the Executive. “The Constitution envisages three offices under the Executive: 1. Governor, 2. The cabinet headed by the chief minister, and 3. Office of the advocate general of the state. The state does not have powers to enact any other offices except those mentioned in the Constitution,” it adds.
The appointments also violate the Himachal Pradesh Salaries and Allowances of Ministers Act, 2000, the petition says, adding that Section 3 of the law deals with salaries and allowances of the chief minister, cabinet ministers, ministers of state and deputy minister (ministers without independent charge of any ministry and are attached to a cabinet minister or minister of state). It does not have any clause for the deputy chief minister, the petition says.
One of the petitioners’ advocates, Virbahadur Verma, told ThePrint, “It is also worthy to mention that CPS (chief parliamentary secretaries) were sworn in by the chief minister and that they have been accorded the status of minister with staff members of their own with all the facilities and privileges of the ministers.”
The same, he added, “would reflect that the state has frustrated the very purpose of the 91st Amendment of the Constitution, which restricts the size of the cabinet, so as to prevent the installation of jumbo cabinets and resultant huge drain on the public exchequer”.
Not a new controversy
The controversy over the appointment of chief parliamentary secretaries is not new in Himachal Pradesh.
On 18 August 2005, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justice V.K. Gupta and Deepak Gupta, cancelled the appointments of chief parliamentary secretaries, ruling that they were against constitutional provisions.
Former chief minister and BJP leader Jairam Thakur said the Congress government should not have the go-ahead for the appointment of chief parliamentary secretaries, especially when “different courts have set it aside in other states”.
“As far as deputy CM is concerned, there is some technical issue about appointment of DCM in Himachal. We are not against anyone but the procedure should be followed,” he told ThePrint. “So we have challenged it in totality.”
Una MLA Satpal Singh Satti said their “legal position has been made clear in the petition and the court has admitted it [the petition]”.
Asked whether challenging the deputy CM’s appointment is justifiable when the BJP has done the same in other states, he said, “The legal team has already mentioned the grounds.”
The Congress has lambasted the BJP for the petition. Himachal Congress vice-president Maheshwar Chauhan said the BJP should act like a national party.
“Is the state unit of the BJP not a part of the national BJP? Because the BJP has deputy CMs in several states,” he added. “It seems the state BJP is undermining the national leadership. Challenging the deputy CM’s post is an act of vengeance as Mukesh Agnihotri played a vital role to throw the BJP out of power in the state.”
Deputy CM Mukesh Agnihotri added, “I don’t know who advised the BJP to do this.”
“Now the matter is in court and I have full faith in the judiciary,” he told ThePrint. “As far as the BJP’s ground is concerned, they should not forget former deputy PM Devi Lal, L.K. Advani and deputy CMs appointed by the BJP in other states.”
Some within the BJP have questioned the petition as well. “This should have been avoided,” said a senior party leader, requesting anonymity. “Challenging the CPS appointment is justifiable and we are sure justice will be delivered. But as far as the deputy CM is concerned, this is there in many states and courts have cleared the position time and again.”
Congress vice-president Maheshwar Chauhan said the government appointed the CPS to give more representation to the public representatives. As far as the litigation is concerned, he said, “Former CM Virbhadra Singh had enacted a law to facilitate the appointments of CPS.”
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: ‘This has to go’: Tribal women in Himachal’s Kinnaur pin hopes on Murmu to scrap century-old law