The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the President’s decision to nominate BJP leader C Sadanandan Master to the Rajya Sabha. The court ruled that the Constitution grants the President “broad discretion” to nominate members to the upper house of Parliament, and the judiciary cannot act as an appellate authority over such decisions.
The ruling was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. The bench emphasized that Article 80(3) of the Constitution empowers the President to nominate up to 12 members who possess special knowledge or practical experience in fields such as literature, science, art, and social service.
Court Defends ‘Broad Discretion’ of the President
In its judgment, the High Court clarified that the constitutional phrases “special knowledge” and “practical experience” are inherently evaluative. The court held that once this constitutional discretion is exercised, it will not intervene unless there is absolutely no connection between the nominee and the categories outlined in the Constitution.
“Once the constitutional discretion has been exercised, this Court would not sit in appeal over such assessment unless the nomination bears no reasonable nexus whatsoever with the categories contemplated under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India,” the bench stated.
The Petitioner’s Allegations
The legal challenge was initiated by Subhash Theekkadan, a practicing lawyer. Theekkadan contended that Sadanandan Master’s nomination, which took place on July 12, 2025, was based “solely on political affiliation.”
The petitioner argued that, based on publicly available information, Sadanandan Master—who has served as the Kerala vice president of the BJP—lacked any nationally recognized specialization, academic distinction, or substantial contribution to literature, science, art, or social service.
Political Background No Bar for Nomination, Rules Court
The High Court firmly rejected the petitioner’s assertions, labeling them as “speculative,” “conjectural in nature,” and “devoid of substance.”
The bench pointed out that the petitioner had failed to provide any concrete material to prove that Sadanandan Master was unqualified or unable to enrich parliamentary debates. Furthermore, the court clarified that a background in active politics or past participation in elections does not disqualify an individual from being nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
“The categories specified in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India are broad in their amplitude and do not exclude a person with a political background, provided such person otherwise possesses special knowledge or practical experience relatable, inter alia, to the field of social service,” the court observed.
Characterizing the allegations against Sadanandan Master as “unsubstantiated and bald,” the bench concluded that none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner could be granted.
While the Central Government had contended from the outset that the PIL was not maintainable, the High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition entirely, ruling it “devoid of merit.”
