In a case that may impact the outcome of the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court on October 24 will hear on merits a pending petition on whether Chief Ministers or Ministers can actually be treated as ‘public servants’ on a par with government functionaries performing public duties.
The petition, filed by advocate R. Rajavel, is likely to come up before a Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy. This is the Bench that heard and reserved for judgment a batch of appeals against the acquittal of Ms. Jayalalithaa and three co-accused by the Karnataka High Court in the wealth case.
The Supreme Court admitted Mr. Rajavel’s petition in November 2015 and issued notice to the opposite parties, including the Centre, the State of Karnataka, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader K. Anbazhagan and Ms. Jayalalithaa.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court, on November 23 last, tagged this petition with the disproportionate assets case.
The petition primarily asked whether it was repugnant to treat Chief Ministers and Ministers on a par with other public servants on government roll, especially when no statute passed by the legislature had ever specifically defined them as such.
Mr. Rajavel contended that his plea was triggered by the prolonged litigation in the Jayalalithaa wealth case. It contended that written law or statutes enacted by Parliament did not include political persons in the category of public servants.
ADVERTISEMENT
Court’s interpretation on February 20, 1979, the Supreme Court, in its judgment in M. Karunanidhi versus Union of India held that the post of Chief Minister was that of a ‘public servant’.
Interpreting the term ‘public servant’, the apex court had taken recourse to Section 21(12)(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which defines a public servant as “every person in the service or pay of the government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the government”. The Prevention of Corruption Act also defines a public servant in a manner similar to the IPC.
The petition contended that, under parliamentary law, public servants are those who are required to pass an examination to prove their credentials, who needed to be of a prescribed age limit, who ought to be politically neutral, and are governed by the Central State Civil Services Conduct Rules.
Jayalalithaa’s case On the other hand, politicians, who are appointed by the President or the Governor on the basis of their electoral performance, and swear ‘in the name of God’, are a privileged category who carry out the political agenda of their parties, and their remuneration is decided by the State legislatures.
In Ms. Jayalalithaa’s case, the petition pointed out how the Prosecution had, throughout, treated her as a public servant even though she was both the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the general secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam during 1991-1996, the period under consideration.