Supreme Court Allows Review of Karnataka Board Appointments with Cabinet‑Rank Status

The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) that challenged a Karnataka High Court judgment upholding the appointment of over 40 legislators as chairpersons and members of state boards and corporations with cabinet‑rank status and ministerial perks. Key Developments The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the SLP, but gave the petitioner liberty to file a review before the Karnataka High Court. The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel did not emphasise the October 7, 2020 order, which may affect the case. The Supreme Court clarified that it made no comment on the merits and did not endorse the petitioner’s locus standi for a public interest litigation. Important Facts • The petitioner, an Engineer‑in‑Chief of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, argued that the October 7, 2020 order meant the expenditure on these appointments came from the Consolidated Fund , thereby invoking constitutional limits. • He cited Article 164(1A) , arguing that granting cabinet‑rank status to legislators effectively enlarges the Council of Ministers beyond the constitutional ceiling. • The High Court had previously held that the appointees were not ministers under Article 164(1A) because they were appointed to statutory bodies, not to the executive cabinet. • The High Court also questioned the petitioner’s bona fides, noting his earlier attempts to secure positions in the same bodies. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several core topics in the UPSC syllabus: Constitutional limits on the size of the Council of Ministers (Article 164(1A)). Interpretation of the Consolidated Fund and its role in funding public offices. The concept of PIL and the criteria for locus standi. Separation of powers between the legislature (which can create posts) and the executive (which can appoint), illustrated by the reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment on Assam Parliamentary Secretaries. Way Forward The petitioner can now file a review petition in the Karnataka High Court, specifically pointing out how the October 7, 2020 order may breach constitutional provisions. If the review is unsatisfactory, he may approach the Supreme Court again. For policymakers, the episode underscores the need for clear guidelines on the financial and status implications of appointing legislators to statutory bodies, ensuring compliance with Article 164(1A) and the limits of the Consolidated Fund . It also highlights the importance of scrutinising executive orders that could effectively expand the size of the Council of Ministers beyond constitutional caps. Case details: SLP(C) No. 18046/2026 , Suri Payala v. State of Karnataka .