TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in a matter of sanction for prosecution of Ministers, the Governor could act in his discretion and decline to follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; (ii) whether the Council of Ministers' refusal of sanction was vitiated by irrelevant considerations and the Governor's grant of sanction was valid.
Issue (i): Whether, in a matter of sanction for prosecution of Ministers, the Governor could act in his discretion and decline to follow the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Analysis: The constitutional scheme under Article 163 makes aid and advice the normal rule, but recognizes exceptional situations where the Governor may act in discretion. The governing principle is that such discretion is not confined only to instances expressly enumerated in the Constitution. Where a decision concerns prosecution of a Chief Minister or Minister, and the Council of Ministers may be affected by apparent bias or may otherwise disable itself from taking an impartial decision, the Governor may act independently. The doctrine of apparent bias was treated as sufficient to displace the normal ministerial advice in such circumstances.
Conclusion: The Governor could validly act in his own discretion in the exceptional facts of the case and was not bound to accept the Council of Ministers' advice.
Issue (ii): Whether the Council of Ministers' refusal of sanction was vitiated by irrelevant considerations and the Governor's grant of sanction was valid.
Analysis: The refusal of sanction was tested on the basis whether relevant material had been considered and whether the decision was fair, reasonable and rational. The material before the Lokayukta and the prima facie record showed a case for prosecution, whereas the Council of Ministers proceeded as though no such case existed. A refusal based on non-consideration of relevant factors and an ex facie irrational assessment was held to be vulnerable. The Governor's decision was supported by the materials and was not shown to suffer from the same defect. The doctrine of necessity was held inapplicable on these facts.
Conclusion: The Council of Ministers' refusal of sanction was unsustainable and the Governor's grant of sanction was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the judgments of the High Court were set aside, the writ petitions filed by the Ministers were dismissed, and prosecution pursuant to the Governor's sanction was permitted to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: In an exceptional case where the Council of Ministers is likely to be affected by apparent bias or its decision is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant material, the Governor may act in his discretion in sanction matters notwithstanding the general rule of aid and advice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
