SC rejects plea for rules on appointment of ministers with criminal cases

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to frame guidelines governing the appointment of ministers facing criminal charges, observing that prescribing judicial parameters for such appointments could be problematic.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant questioned the feasibility of laying down uniform guidelines, pointing out that criminal proceedings could be initiated or weaponised against political opponents.

The bench highlighted the possibility of criminal cases being used as instruments of political vendetta, cautioning against a framework that could potentially enable the exclusion of political representatives from ministerial positions merely because criminal proceedings had been initiated against them.


The petition sought judicial intervention to establish standards for the appointment of ministers in the Union and state governments, particularly those facing criminal charges. The issue raised concerns about criminalisation of politics and the need to ensure probity and integrity in public office.

The plea also brought into focus the constitutional discretion exercised by the prime minister and chief ministers in recommending individuals for appointment to their respective councils of ministers.

The issue had earlier been examined by a constitution bench in Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014). The court had declined to introduce additional disqualifications through judicial interpretation, while observing that the prime minister and chief ministers were legitimately expected to exercise their discretion responsibly and avoid appointing persons facing charges in serious or heinous criminal cases, including corruption-related offences.

The constitution bench had also underscored that prescribing additional restrictions on ministerial appointments was essentially a matter for Parliament and the appropriate legislature.