K. Lakshminarayanan v. Union of India & Anr. (with S. Dhanalakshmi v. Union of India & Ors.)
Background
After the 2016 Puducherry Assembly elections, the Union Government nominated three persons (not elected representatives) as members of the Legislative Assembly under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, without consulting the elected Puducherry Government. The Chief Whip and a PIL petitioner challenged this nomination in the Madras High Court, arguing that the elected Council of Ministers had to be consulted, citing past instances where such consultation had occurred. The Puducherry Assembly Speaker separately refused to recognise the nominated members, a decision the nominated members themselves successfully challenged in connected writ petitions. The Madras High Court dismissed the challenge to the nomination itself (while ruling in favour of the nominated members on the separate recognition issue), and the original challengers appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Central Government's power under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1963 to nominate up to three members to the Puducherry Assembly is a standalone statutory power that does not require consultation with, or concurrence of, the elected Council of Ministers: past instances of consultation were a matter of political courtesy, not a binding constitutional convention with the force of law. The Court separately held that nominated members are full members of the Assembly for all purposes, including the right to vote on all matters, such as the budget and no-confidence motions, since the relevant provisions (Sections 11 and 12 of the Act) draw no distinction between elected and nominated members. However, the Court found the High Court had overstepped by making specific procedural recommendations (in paragraph 5 of its judgment) for how future nominations should be made, and struck those recommendations out as unwarranted given that Rules of Business already exist for the exercise of such Central Government powers. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, upholding the validity of the 2017 nominations, subject only to deleting the High Court's recommendations.
Lesson Learnt
A long-standing political practice of consultation, however frequently followed, does not by itself become a binding legal rule unless the governing statute requires it; and once validly nominated under a statute, a legislator, even a nominated, non-elected one, carries the same full voting rights as elected members unless the law expressly says otherwise.