The Karnataka High Court has taken notice of allegations against the state government’s appointments of Congress party workers to key positions overseeing the implementation of its Five Guarantees schemes. On February 27, 2025, the bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun directed the state to respond to public interest litigation (PIL) challenging these positions, which have stirred considerable controversy over their legitimacy and financial ramifications.
The PIL was filed by P. Rajeev, former MLA for Kudachi constituency and member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Rajeev’s argument centered on the notion of political patronage, claiming the appointments constituted wasteful expenditures from the state exchequer. He contended during the proceedings, led by Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, "These appointments amount to unnecessary financial burden as they reward political workers with undue status and financial benefits."
The government had issued appointments through Government Order (GO) dated January 25, 2024, alongside two consequential orders meant to implement social welfare measures promising free electricity, food grain distribution, monetary aid for unemployed graduates, free bus travel for women, and other benefits. Critics of the appointments argue they were politically motivated, rewarding Congress affiliates instead of qualified individuals.
Shyam elaborated during the court hearing, articulately presenting the argument against the appointments. He noted, "The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of these committees have been granted Cabinet and Minister of State statuses, respectively, which raises questions about their qualifications and the applicable law governing such appointments." He underlined the potential interference of these political appointees with the proper implementation of policies meant for public welfare.
The Karnataka High Court pointed out the discrepancies within the government order. Justice Arun remarked, "It appears to indicate someone who is appointed should already have Cabinet rank status. It does not clarify whether they will be appointed and then conferred with such rank." This suggests ambiguity within the governmental framework surrounding these appointments, prompting the court’s inquiry.
Further scrutiny revealed the lack of legal backing for these appointments. Shyam highlighted the absence of any Cabinet resolution to support the creation of these posts, stating, "The government could have appointed qualified IAS officers instead of political party members who lack relevant experience and qualifications." The government’s response failed to offer incidents of misuse or provide justification for extending such high status to the committee members.
The PIL not only addresses appointments but also questions the extension of facilities associated with Cabinet-level positions. Presidents of the state and district-level committees are reported to receive salaries and perks akin to those of Cabinet ministers, making the financial strain on the state’s budget quite pronounced. Rajeev’s petition asserts, "This kind of arrangement is not only uncalled for but also burdens the taxpayer, who is left to finance these political favors."
During the session, the Chief Justice raised additional queries, prompting discussions on whether the appointments aligned with Article 164 of the Constitution, which places limits on the number of members of the Council of Ministers. Justice Anjaria stated, "It’s imperative to ascertain whether these appointments can be deemed legitimate state government appointments or if they constitute mere political patronage." By framing the debate around constitutional validity, the court is emphasizing the importance of maintaining ethical governance amid political maneuvering.
Among the committee appointments highlighted were Congress leaders such as H.M. Revanna as chairperson and vice-presidents S.R. Patil Byadgi, Pushpa Amarnath, Meharaj Khan, and Suraj Hegde. Each has been granted exclusive benefits including sitting fees, which reportedly range from ₹25,000 to ₹40,000 for committee members. This provision has been labeled as yet another unnecessary financial strain on public resources.
What this controversy reveals is the broader political dynamics at play within Karnataka. The Five Guarantees were originally touted as part of Congress’s successful electoral strategy but have now raised eyebrows due to their implementation mechanism it employs. The court's decision to require the state’s response by March 27 holds significant weight as it reflects the judiciary's engagement with political processes, aiming to uphold accountability.
On the surface, the provisions of the Five Guarantees seem to promise substantial benefits to citizens. Still, they also raise significant questions about governance practices and political ethics. The upcoming responses from the state government will be closely monitored by political analysts and stakeholders within the state, determining if this issue will lead to reform or highlight continued corruption.
Advocacy for transparency and accountability continues to gain traction, no matter the outcomes of these appointments. The Karnataka High Court's involvement marks potentially pivotal moments for how state welfare will be administered and the integrity with which it is executed.
The upcoming weeks, leading to the March deadline for the state government's response, could set precedence for similar cases across the country. The legal scrutiny of these local governance strategies will be particularly telling as citizens seek fair representation and effective governance devoid of political undertones.