NVCO lauds SC for upholding Article 164 (IA)

Dimapur, August 1 (EMN): President of Nagaland Voluntary Consumers’ Organisation (NVCO), Kezhokhoto Savi, who is also national award recipient, expressed his happiness upon the landmark judgement of the apex court upholding Article 164(IA) of the Constitution of India which provides for limiting the number of ministers in the state cabinets. The total number of ministers including the chief minister has to be within 15 per cent of the total number of members of the legislative assembly of the state. Accordingly, Nagaland can have only 12 ministers including chief minister and the huge expenditures incurred upon 26 parliamentary secretaries and 9 Advisors of cabinet status can be removed, NVCO Media Cell said.It may be mentioned here that the Supreme Court of India has, on July 27, 2017, declared the Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 as unconstitutional. Kezhokhoto Savi, Advocate, pointed out that Article 164(IA) was inserted in the Constitution on the recommendation of the National Commission for review of the Working of the Constitution headed by former Chief Justice of India, MN Venkatachliah on misuse and draining of public money to put a ban on over-sized cabinet. Savi stated that various High Courts, in the past, have deemed the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries as unconstitutional and ruled against such appointments. In 2009, in the case of Adv. Aires Rodrigues vs. the State of Goa and others, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court discussed the impact of arbitrary State Union action relating to appointment of Parliament Secretaries in Goa. It held that appointing Parliamentary Secretaries of the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister was in violation to Article 164(IA) of the Constitution and set aside the appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries in the state government. In 2005, in Citizen Rights Protection Forum vs Union of India and others, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the appointment of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliament Secretaries. It held that ‘Parliamentary Secretaries are usurpers of public office since their appointments did not owe their origin to any constitutional or legal provision, they having been appointed by person(s) not vested with the power of appointment.’