The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the Karnataka government’s decision to award cabinet-level rank to 42 legislators appointed to head various state boards and corporations.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to seek recourse through a review petition before the Karnataka High Court instead.
“We dispose of this petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the high court,” the bench stated.
The Legal Battle and High Court’s Dismissal
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by Suri Payala, an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Payala’s appeal challenged a March 4 order by the Karnataka High Court, which had dismissed his initial petition.
In its March ruling, the High Court raised questions about the petitioner’s motives, suggesting the litigation was not entirely driven by public interest.
“We also find merit in the contention that the present petition is not entirely in public interest, but is also occasioned by the petitioner’s aspirations for certain posts,” the High Court had observed, adding that Payala had failed to disclose his potential personal interest as required by law.
However, representing the petitioner before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate K Parameshwar argued that the High Court had not given the matter the serious consideration it deserved. Parameshwar pointed out that the departments in question rely entirely on public funding, noting that their money “comes from the consolidated fund of India.”
The Core of the Dispute: Perks and Constitutional Limits
The controversy stems from a Karnataka government order issued on January 26, 2025, which granted cabinet rank to 34 legislators, adding to the eight who already held the status. This massive single notification raised immediate concerns about the expansion of executive privileges.
According to the petition, the decision to bestow cabinet status on these Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) grants them substantial state-funded perks, including:
- Higher salaries
- Official vehicles and drivers
- Fuel allowances
- House Rent Allowances (HRA)
- Medical reimbursements
While the petitioner asserted that appointing legislators to lead state boards and corporations is not inherently problematic, granting them cabinet rank bypasses constitutional safeguards.
Specifically, the plea argues the move violates Article 164(1A) of the Constitution, which restricts the size of the council of ministers to prevent excessive government expansion. Furthermore, the petition claims the appointments constitute an “office of profit,” violating Article 191, which disqualifies lawmakers from holding such positions.
A “Dangerous Precedent”
In his petition, Payala warned that allowing these appointments to stand would set a dangerous precedent, incentivizing legislators to lobby for additional roles and taxpayer-funded perks. This, the plea claimed, is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and actively erodes public trust in legislative integrity.
The legal challenge also cited violations of Article 102 of the Constitution, the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956, and Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
With the Supreme Court referring the matter back to the state level, the legal focus now shifts back to the Karnataka High Court, where the petitioner has been granted the liberty to seek a formal review of the dismissal.
