Context: Article 163 of Constitution of India is in news in context of MUDA scam in which Governor Thawarchand Gehlot has allowed investigation against Chief Minister of Karnataka in Mysore Urban development Authority scam.
About Article 163: Article 163 deals with Council of Ministers to aid and advice the Governor in the States.
- Article 163(1): There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is required to exercise his functions at his discretion.
- Article 163(2): If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
- Article 163(3): The advice tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court.
Background information in this case
- The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the Governor is “bound” by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- However, C.M. Siddaramaiah has argued that the Governor is bound by the resolution of the Council of Ministers as per Article 163, asking Governor to withdraw the show-cause notice. Instead, the Governor has given sanction for investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act without justifying why the allegations require an investigation or a trial.
Question of Law: Whether Governor is bound by aid and advice of Council of Minister in such cases.
Relevant cases
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution explicitly allows the Governor to act in his discretion. He/ she is not required to act person· ally without the aid and advice of the council of ministers or against the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): This case dealt with the role of the Governor under Article 356, which is related to President’s Rule. While discussing Article 163, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Governor's discretion is limited and he must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations provided by the Constitution.
- S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Primarily a case on Article 356, it also discussed the role of the Governor under Article 163. The Supreme Court held that the Governor's report to the President under Article 356 must be based on objective material, and the Governor’s actions are subject to judicial review.
- M. P. Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004): This case dealt with the Governor’s discretion in granting sanction for prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that in certain circumstances, the Governor may act independently of the Council of Ministers, especially where the ministers themselves are under investigation.
Present Status: Case is ongoing and Karnataka High Court is yet to determine if the governor was bound by the advice of Council of Minister or if facts, circumstances, and precedent of M. P. Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) are enough to go ahead with prosecution.