No Constitutional Bar on MPs Becoming State CM or Deputy CM: Allahabad High Court Upholds 2017 Appointments, Dismisses PIL Challenging Dual Role

“A Member of Parliament Does Not Hold a Constitutional Office or Office of Profit Merely by Drawing Salary” – In a detailed and reportable judgment that decisively settles the legality of Members of Parliament (MPs) assuming office as Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister of a State, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Sanjay Sharma, which had challenged the 2017 appointments of Yogi Adityanath and Keshav Prasad Maurya as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh while they were still sitting MPs.

The PIL also sought to strike down Section 3(a) of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, contending it shielded unconstitutional dual office holding and encouraged “misuse of public funds.”

Rejecting all grounds raised, a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti held:

“There is no constitutional prohibition, express or implied, that bars a Member of Parliament from being appointed as a Minister in the State Government. The Constitution permits such an arrangement under Article 164(4), and the challenge is constitutionally untenable.” [Para 11]

PIL Challenged 2017 CM Appointments Citing “Implied Constitutional Restrictions” and “Doctrine of Separation of Powers”

The petitioner had sought, inter alia:

1. A declaration that the 2017 appointment of Yogi Adityanath and Keshav Maurya as CM and Deputy CM was null and void, given that both were sitting MPs at the time.
2. A declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 3(a) of the 1959 Act, which excludes Ministerial posts from disqualification under “office of profit” provisions.

While acknowledging that both leaders resigned from Parliament in September 2017, after being elected to the U.P. Legislative Council, the petitioner’s primary contention was that the initial appointment while being MPs violated constitutional scheme, federal structure, and principles of constitutional morality.

Constitution Clearly Permits Appointment of Non-MLAs as Ministers for Six Months

The Court laid emphasis on Article 164(4) of the Constitution, which allows a person who is not a member of the State Legislature to be appointed as a Minister for six months, during which they must secure election to the State Legislature.

“The legal position is settled that even if a person is not a Member of the State Legislature, he can be appointed as Chief Minister of the State subject to the condition contained in Article 164(4)... This ‘person’ could include one who is a Member of Parliament.” [Para 22]

The Bench also clarified that neither Article 191(1)(a) nor any provision of the U.P. State Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1971, prohibited such an appointment, especially as a Member of Parliament does not hold an “office of profit” under the Government.

MP Not a Government Appointee, Not a Constitutional Office Holder

Answering the core legal question, the Court reasoned that an MP’s role is sui generis, not a government post, and thus not in violation of Article 191 or Article 102, which deal with disqualification due to office of profit.

“A Member of Parliament is not appointed by the Government. He is elected, and his role is to represent constituents in Parliament. He does not hold an office under the Government of India or the State, and the salary he receives does not convert him into a salaried employee.” [Para 13]

Citing Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2019) 11 SCC 683, the Court emphasized that legislators are not employees, and that the mere drawing of salary does not amount to holding an office of profit. Their tenure is not at the pleasure of the executive, nor do they fall within the conventional employer-employee framework.

“Office of MP Not a Constitutional Post” – Analogy to President, VP or Governor Misplaced

The petitioner had drawn parallels to Articles 63, 64, 158, and others relating to Vice-President, Governor, etc., to argue that holding multiple constitutional offices simultaneously was against the scheme of the Constitution.

The Court flatly rejected the analogy:

“A Member of Parliament does not hold a constitutional office or post... The Constitution does not create these offices nor define their functions. They are not constitutional offices like President, Vice President, or Speaker. Hence, the claim that opposite party nos. 5 and 6 held ‘two constitutional offices’ simultaneously is incorrect.” [Para 17]

Separation of Powers Argument Lacks Merit – Ministers Are Expected to Be Legislators

The petitioner’s contention that simultaneous roles of MP and CM/Deputy CM breached separation of powers was also rejected as constitutionally absurd.

The Court observed:

“Every Minister in a State has ultimately to be a Member of the State Legislature. If this argument is accepted, no Minister can ever be appointed. Article 164(4) itself permits this arrangement. The submission is constitutionally fallacious and is rejected.” [Para 20]

Challenge to Section 3(a) of Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act Also Rejected

The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3(a) of the 1959 Act, which excludes the office of Minister (including CM or Deputy CM) from attracting disqualification under Article 102(1)(a).

“The Constitution itself, through the Explanation to Article 102(1)(a), excludes Ministerial offices from disqualification. Parliament, acting under its legislative competence, rightly enacted Section 3(a). The challenge has no legal foundation.” [Paras 31–35]

“We do not find any constitutional or legal basis for declaring Section 3(a) of the Act, 1959 as unconstitutional. The Act does not contravene Article 101 in any manner whatsoever.” [Para 34]

Court Finds No Breach of Constitutional Morality by the Governor

The petitioner had accused the Governor of U.P. of failing to act in accordance with constitutional morality by not insisting on the MPs’ resignation prior to their oath as Ministers. The Court called this an “unsubstantiated and flawed” reading of the Governor’s role.

“To say that the Governor of U.P. did not exercise his discretion constitutionally is a misconception. There is no bar, express or implied, on such an appointment.” [Para 20]

PIL Dismissed, Appointments and Law Upheld

The High Court decisively dismissed the PIL, holding that the appointments of the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister in 2017 were constitutionally valid, and the challenge to Section 3(a) of the 1959 Act was unfounded.

“There is no merit in the writ petition. None of the provisions cited by the petitioner create any bar on appointment of a sitting Member of Parliament as Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister. The PIL is accordingly dismissed.” [Concluding Paragraph]

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025