Are Chief Ministers public servants?

LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

NEW DELHI, October 14, 2016

SC to hear petition on whether CMs and Ministers can be

treated on a par with govt. functionaries
In a case that may impact the outcome of the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister
Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court will, on October 24, hear on merits a pending petition on whether Chief Ministers or
Ministers of government can actually be treated as public servants on a par with government functionaries
performing public duties.
Listed for hearing on Oct. 24
The petition, filed by advocate R. Rajavel, has been listed for hearing on October 24 and 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 her three co-accused by the Karnataka High Court in the wealth
case.
The Supreme Court admitted Mr. Rajavels petition in November 2015 and issued notice to the opposite parties,
including the Centre, the State of Karnataka, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. Anbazhagan, and Ms.
Jayalalithaa.
The court, on November 23 last year, 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.

Courts interpretation
The Supreme Court, on February 20, 1979, in its
judgment in M. Karunanidhi versus Union of Indiaheld
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.
Jayalalithaas 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. Jayalalithaas 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.