New Delhi: There is no convention under the constitutional scheme that a minister charged by court with the commission of a serious offence should resign, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

This submission was made during the hearing of a public interest litigation petition filed by Manoj Narula challenging the induction of tainted MPs into the Union Cabinet.

Solicitor-General G. E. Vahanvati also contended before a Bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, that there could not be an inquiry into the existence of such a convention as it was not raised in the pleadings, and it could be decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench, to which the matter has already been referred.

Response to amicus curiae

The Centre was responding to the question raised by Rakesh Dwivedi, amicus curiae, whether there existed a constitutional convention that ministers charged with a serious offence should resign.

The Solicitor-General said convention played an important role, particularly in an unwritten Constitution, in controlling the exercise called parliamentary prerogative. However, a convention had to emanate from the institution to which it was related. It could not be enforced by courts and could only be debated in Parliament.

`Convention has to be established'

A convention that a tainted MP should resign as minister could not be assumed but had to be established, Mr. Vahanvati said. However, Mr. Dwivedi said there should be a clear convention that a person should not continue as minister on being chargesheeted. He gave the instance of a Chief Minister, who resigned when he was to face trial in a criminal case but later became minister at the Centre. Similarly, Parkash Singh Badal recently assumed office as Punjab Chief Minister despite the apex court refusing to stay his prosecution in a criminal case.

Vohra report

The Solicitor-General, who was earlier asked to take instruction on the issue of submitting the N. N. Vohra Committee report, said it was already a subject matter of the court in another case.

The court wanted to know whether the Centre could file in a sealed cover the report of the Vohra Committee, which went into criminalisation of politics.

Mr. Vahanvati said the court had accepted the submission that material on which the Vohra Committee report was based could not be released.

Hearing on August 14

The court, which maintained that the question of tainted ministers was an issue of public importance, fixed August 14 for an in-depth hearing — PTI

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail