High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Karnataka High Court Upholds Removal of Minorities Commission Chairman, Emphasizes State's Authority under Doctrine of Pleasure

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Karnataka High Court has upheld the removal of Abdul Azeem from the position of Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, emphasizing the state's authority to appoint and remove officials under the "doctrine of pleasure" as per the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994. Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed Azeem's writ petition challenging his removal, underlining the government's statutory right to make such decisions without being deemed arbitrary.

The court underscored the application of the "doctrine of pleasure," which grants the government the authority to appoint and remove officials without the need for a fixed tenure. "The statute itself recognizes the right of the Government to tinker with the nomination prior to its expiry as it is subject to the pleasure of the Government," Justice Nagaprasanna noted, citing Section 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles surrounding the "doctrine of pleasure" and its application in democratic governance. It referenced multiple landmark judgments, including B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India, to elucidate that while the doctrine allows removal without cause, it must not be exercised arbitrarily. The court observed, "The doctrine of pleasure does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically."

Justice Nagaprasanna explained that the removal under Section 4, unlike disqualification under Section 5, does not necessitate a hearing or cause. "Once the doctrine of pleasure is invoked, neither the principles of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise," the judgment stated, reinforcing the statutory framework that allows the government such discretion.

"The petitioner's appointment was always subject to the pleasure of the Government, as per the statute. Therefore, the argument of arbitrariness in the exercise of this statutory right does not hold," remarked Justice Nagaprasanna.

Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court's dismissal of Abdul Azeem's petition reaffirms the government's statutory authority to appoint and remove officials within the framework of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act. This decision emphasizes the legitimacy of the "doctrine of pleasure" while cautioning against its arbitrary use. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for future appointments and removals within statutory bodies, underscoring the balance between governmental discretion and the rule of law.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Abdul Azeem vs. State of Karnataka and Others

 

Similar News