Madras HC dismisses PIL challenging appointment of IAS officers as govt spokespersons
Advertisement
Chennai, Aug 7: The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to appoint four senior IAS officers as its official spokespersons.
The court also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for filing what it deemed an unnecessary and unsubstantiated plea.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to entertain the PIL filed by advocate M. Sathya Kumar of Selaiyur, Chennai, and rejected it at the admission stage itself.
The PIL had contested the appointment of IAS officers J. Radhakrishnan, Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Dheeraj Kumar, and P. Amudha as official spokespersons of the Tamil Nadu government.
However, the bench observed that the appointments were made by the state government, not the ruling political party, and that no legal provision had been violated.
"The appointments were clearly administrative in nature and within the state’s jurisdiction. There is no basis to suggest that these officers were being used for political purposes," it said.
During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel contended that such appointments represented an administrative overreach and that senior IAS officers should not be indirectly deployed for political communication.
He claimed that the appointments were announced merely through a press release, without any Government Order issued in the name of the Governor. Further, the counsel argued that there was no evidence to show that the decision had been taken with the approval of the Council of Ministers, as is constitutionally mandated. He insisted that such a move must be subjected to constitutional scrutiny, especially since it was reportedly the first instance in which IAS officers were designated as government spokespersons.
However, the bench dismissed these arguments, stating that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the appointments or establish how they violated constitutional norms.
The judges reiterated that a PIL cannot be used as a platform to question every administrative decision of the government without concrete grounds. Terming the petition as lacking merit and frivolous in nature, the court imposed Rs 1 lakh as costs on the petitioner, in a strong message against the misuse of PILs to challenge lawful administrative decisions.
The court also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for filing what it deemed an unnecessary and unsubstantiated plea.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to entertain the PIL filed by advocate M. Sathya Kumar of Selaiyur, Chennai, and rejected it at the admission stage itself.
The PIL had contested the appointment of IAS officers J. Radhakrishnan, Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Dheeraj Kumar, and P. Amudha as official spokespersons of the Tamil Nadu government.
However, the bench observed that the appointments were made by the state government, not the ruling political party, and that no legal provision had been violated.
"The appointments were clearly administrative in nature and within the state’s jurisdiction. There is no basis to suggest that these officers were being used for political purposes," it said.
During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel contended that such appointments represented an administrative overreach and that senior IAS officers should not be indirectly deployed for political communication.
He claimed that the appointments were announced merely through a press release, without any Government Order issued in the name of the Governor. Further, the counsel argued that there was no evidence to show that the decision had been taken with the approval of the Council of Ministers, as is constitutionally mandated. He insisted that such a move must be subjected to constitutional scrutiny, especially since it was reportedly the first instance in which IAS officers were designated as government spokespersons.
However, the bench dismissed these arguments, stating that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the appointments or establish how they violated constitutional norms.
The judges reiterated that a PIL cannot be used as a platform to question every administrative decision of the government without concrete grounds. Terming the petition as lacking merit and frivolous in nature, the court imposed Rs 1 lakh as costs on the petitioner, in a strong message against the misuse of PILs to challenge lawful administrative decisions.
Advertisement