Monday, August 1 2005 16:04 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: In a development that could raise further debates on "tainted" Minister controversy, the Supreme Court today (August 1, 2005) asked the Government as to who should decide the question "what is clean governance" and whether it could entertain such a query involving the spirit of Constitution.

This question was put by a three-judge Bench, comprising, Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice C K Thakker and Justice P K Balasubramanyan while dealing with a PIL filed by one Manoj Narula challenging inclusion of "tainted" persons in the Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The issue came when the Centre through Attorney General Milon Banerjee and Solicitor General G E Vahanvati told the apex Court that it was the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister to choose his council of Minister and the prerogative was no amenable to judicial scrutiny.

"Probing the matter further will not be beneficial to conventions and Parliamentary democracy," Banerjee said.

The Attorney General's statement assumes significance in the backdrop of Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee taking serious objection to the apex Court's intervention in the Jharkhand Government formation and its decision scrapping the controversial IMDT issue.

"My duty is to prevent even the germs of discordance coming between the judiciary and Parliament, both of which were supreme in their own spheres," Banerjee said.

The Court wanted to know from the Government as to whether it could entertain the petition but found certain "unsubstantiated allegations" made in the petition prompting it to ask the petitioner to amend it within two weeks.

The apex Court said what is to be debated in Parliament is completely with Parliament's discretion and the Court could do nothing about it if it chose not to discuss the issue of tainted Ministers.

But, it went on to ask the Attorney General, who was assisted by senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, as to whether a citizen of the country had a right to choose what type of persons should govern him.

The question raised in the petition, the Bench said "is it a mere political questions or a political question coupled with a constitutional right? If it is was a pure political issue then we would not entertain the petition."

Amicus Curiae Rakesh Dwivedi contended that in the present scenario of dwindling standards of elected representatives, the day was not far when a person facing trial for murder, dacoity and treason charges could become the Prime Minister.

"Would it then be said that the President was bound to accept the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, the Courts could also entertain the petition on tainted Ministers as the legislators no longer believe in the conventions first set by Finance Minister T T Krishnamachari, who had resigned in the 1950s in the wake of a scandal," he added.

Vahanvati said qualification and disqualification of a person to become a Minister were the same as those applicable for a person to become the Member of a House.

It was totally within the domain of Parliament whether to add or delete from the list of qualifications, he said and added the constitutional provisions bar the Courts from entering the arena.