New Delhi, November 6, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking constitutional safeguards and objective standards for appointing Ministers facing serious criminal charges at the Centre and in states.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana expressed reservations about framing guidelines that could restrict the discretion of the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers in selecting members of their Cabinets.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that criminal cases could sometimes be initiated against political leaders by their opponents as part of the democratic process. He also questioned whether it would be appropriate for the court to impose restrictions on ministerial appointments, particularly when prosecutions could follow a change of government.
Advocate Nisha Tiwari, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the discretion exercised by the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers should be reasonable and governed by certain parameters.
“All that I am saying is that the exercise of discretion has to be reasonable. There have to be certain parameters governing that discretion,” she submitted.
Tiwari also argued that voters do not necessarily endorse the appointment of legislators with criminal antecedents as Cabinet Ministers merely by electing them.
“Whenever I cast my vote, I do not necessarily endorse somebody with criminal antecedents becoming a Cabinet Minister. With respect, there has to be a reasonable limit. That is all I am saying,” she submitted.
The Bench, however, proceeded to dismiss the PIL filed by Dilip Kumar Sharma under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petition had sought directions for prescribing safeguards under Articles 75(1) and 164(1), which deal with ministerial appointments at the Centre and in states. It argued that the absence of objective suitability standards allowed people facing serious criminal proceedings to be appointed Ministers and entrusted with sensitive portfolios.
Citing data compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the plea claimed that 47 per cent of sitting Ministers across the country had declared pending criminal cases, while 27 per cent faced serious criminal charges.
The petitioner also argued that appointing Ministers facing criminal proceedings to portfolios involving control over police and prosecution machinery could create conflicts of interest and undermine the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
The plea relied on the 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in Manoj Narula vs Union of India, in which the Supreme Court declined to read an implied disqualification into the relevant constitutional provisions but stressed the expectation of restraint by the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers while appointing people with serious criminal antecedents.
It contended that political self-restraint had not produced the desired results and sought a transparent framework involving objective suitability assessments, public disclosure of reasons through a “Suitability Memorandum” and safeguards against allocation of portfolios involving potential conflicts of interest.
The petition also referred to recommendations by various committees and commissions on the criminalisation of politics, as well as three Bills introduced by the Union government in Parliament in 2025 proposing the removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Minister who remains under arrest for more than 30 days in connection with a serious criminal offence.
The petitioner argued that an arrest-based threshold alone would not address cases where people facing serious criminal charges continued to hold ministerial office without being arrested.
FOLLOW NOW
