INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES & PRINCIPLES OF

LEGISLATIONS (LW 4017)

CASE ANALYSIS TOPIC: TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES AND

S.R. CHAUDHURI V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME: ASTHA RANJAN

CLASS: BBA LL.B.

SECTION: A

ROLL NUMBER: 1982026

SEMESTER: 7TH

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. PAROMITA CHATTORAJ

Ms. SONALI SWETAPADM

1|Page
 S.R. CHAUDHURI V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(2001) 7 SCC 126

FACTS:
In the present case, on 09.09.1995 Shri Tej Parkash Singh (Respondent no. 2) had been
appointed as a Minister on the advice of the Chief Minister of Punjab, Sardar Harcharan
Singh Brar. During the time he was appointed as the Minister, he was not the member of the
Legislative Assembly and also failed to get elected within the prescribed period of six
months. On account of his failure to do so, he submitted his resignation on 08.03.1996 as it
was required by law. After the then Chief Minister resigned, Smt. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal
(Respondent no. 3) was appointed as the Chief Minister on 21.11.1996 who once again
appointed Respondent no.2 as the Minister w.e.f. 23.11.1996. Even till that date, Tej Parkash
had not been appointed as the member of the legislature.

The appellant filed a petition seeking writ of quo warranto against Tej Parkash Singh. It was
so stated that the appointment of Respondent no. 2 without being elected as a member of the
Legislature for the second time during the term of same Legislature was violative of
constitutional provisions. Nevertheless, the division bench of the High Court vide its order
dated 03.12.1996, dismissed the said writ petition in limine. Therefore, an appeal by special
leave was filed before the Supreme Court.

INTERPRETATIVE ISSUE:
Whether or not a non-member, who fails to get elected during the period of six consecutive
months, after he is appointed as a Minister or while a Minister has ceased to be a legislator,
be reappointed as a Minister, without being elected to the Legislature after the expiry of the
period of six consecutive months as envisaged under Article 164 (4) of the Constitution of
India?

CONCEPT OF TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY

Travaux Preparatoires is a French term which means ‘preparatory works’. It encompasses all
the materials used in the preparation of a statute like parliamentary or the legislative history,
debates at the time of drafting, speeches made in the course of debate on the bill in the House
of the parliament, white papers, the report of the commissions or the committee etc. It acts as
a secondary form or external aid to the interpretation which helps in deriving the true intent
of the legislature or the law makers. While there are several internal aids and mechanism
2|Page
for

3|Page
interpretation of a statute, but when the internal aid fails to provide for the ambiguities and
breaks down, then there arises a pressing need to look beyond the texts of the statute and
decipher the true intent of the legislature behind the incorporation of such statute or
provision. It was in the case of Pepper v. Hart ([1992] UKHL 3) where the dilemma of
acceptance of external aid of interpretation was done away with and Lord Brown Wilkinson
abolished the exclusionary rule and replaced it with the inclusionary rule of accepting
parliamentary materials. However, recourse to external aid in interpreting a statutory
provision would be justified only within well recognized limits and primarily the effect of
statutory provision must be judged on a fair and reasonable construction of the words used by
the statute itself. Thus where the words of the statute are clear, unambiguous, and explicit,
there is no scope to have recourse to external aid for their construction.

APPLICATION OF THE EXTERNAL AID:

The court in this case primarily dealt with the interpretation of Article 164 and in particular
Article 164 (4) of the Constitution of India. It is a sound principle that the Council of Minister
shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly, which is indicative towards the
fact that they will all be the member of the Legislature to which they shall be collectively
responsible. However, to meet some extraordinary situation, an exception has been provided
under Article 164 (4) which provides even a non-member to be appointed as a Minister for a
short period of six consecutive months from the date of his appointment, but, if during the
said period, he is not elected to the legislature, he would cease to be a member at the expiry
of that period.

In order to ascertain the true intent of the legislature in the present case and to adjudicate
upon the issue before it, Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the discussions and debates in the
parliament during the introduction of Article 144 (3) of the Draft Constitution which
corresponds to Article 164 (4) of the Constitution of India. By placing its reliance on the
version of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar where he stated that the privilege which is permitted extends
only for six months and that this Article does not confers a right upon the individuals to sit in
the House without being elected at all, the court deciphered the true intent behind the
enactment.

While referring to the debates in the Constituent Assembly (travaux Preparatoires), the court
stated that the debates clearly indicates that a non-member's inclusion in the Cabinet was
considered to be a ‘privilege’ that extends only for six months, during which period the
4|Page
member

5|Page
must get elected, otherwise he would cease to be a Minister. It is a settled position that
debates in the Constituent Assembly may be relied upon as an external aid to interpret a
constitutional provision because it is the function of the court to find out the intention of the
framers of the Constitution. It is evident from the debates that the framers of the Constitution
did not visualise that a non-legislator can be repeatedly appointed as a Minister for a term of
six months each time, without getting elected because such a course strikes at the very root of
parliamentary democracy. The debates which encompasses the intent of the Constituent
Assembly, clearly figure out that the said privilege ‘only’ extends for six months.
Furthermore, the court also pointed out that the framers of the Constitution have used the
expression ‘six consecutive months’, which implies that that the period must run
continuously and not even intermittently.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

It was held by the court that it would subvert the Constitution and would be derogatory to the
constitutional scheme if an individual, who is not a member of the Legislature is appointed as
a Minister repeatedly for a term of ‘six consecutive months’ without him getting himself
elected in the meanwhile. It further went on to state that the democratic process which lies at
the core of our Constitutional schemes cannot be permitted to be flouted in such manner. As a
consequence, the court was of the view that the reappointment of Respondent no. 2 should be
set aside as improper, undemocratic, bad in law and hence, unconsitutional, but, at the same
time it also opined that its judgement would not render any order made or action taken by the
Respondent as Minister bad or invalid.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

The decision given by the court in the present case upon the perusal of the Travaux
Preparatoires in the form of parliamentary history in order to decipher the ambiguities seems
to upheld the principle of parliamentary democracy. This principle amongst other also
envisages the representation of the people and draws a direct line of authority from the people
through the Legislature to the executives. It needs to be taken care that where the words of
the statute are clear, unambiguous, and explicit, there such preparatory materials must not be
perused.

The court in holding that the reappointment of Shri Tej Parkash Singh for the second time
during the same term of the legislative assembly was improper and unconstitutional referred

6|Page
not only the Constituent Assembly debates of India but also from various jurisdictions where

7|Page
similar provisions existed like Canada, Australia etc. It needs to be considered that the
constitutional provisions should always be interpreted in an object-oriented approach and not
in a narrow and pedantic sense with the purpose which it seeks to achieve. Further, in a
parliamentary democracy like ours, all Ministers are chosen out of the members of the
Legislature and only in rare cases, a non-member is appointed as a Minister, who must get
himself returned to the Legislature by direct or indirect election within a short period and he
should not be permitted to continue in office indefinitely unless he gets elected.

Moreover, the intent of the legislature as it could be decrypted from the materials available
was not to provide or extend the privilege to the Chief Minister on whose advice the
individuals were appointed, therefore, it was not permissible for different Chief Ministers, to
appoint the same individual as a Minister, without him getting elected, during the term of the
same Assembly. Such reappointments would be an abuse of constitutional provisions and
subversive of constitutional guarantees, the consequence of which would be beyond the
imagination of the framers of our Constitution. Hence, the court was just in delivering its
judgement.

For the above-mentioned reasons, I concur with the views of the Hon’ble court.

8|Page
9|Page