New Delhi, May 29 The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the President's decision to nominate BJP leader C Sadanandan Master to the Rajya Sabha.
A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia stated that Article 80(3) of the Constitution empowers the President to nominate 12 members having special knowledge or practical experience in matters such as literature, science, art, and social service to the Rajya Sabha and the court cannot sit in appeal over her decision.
According to the petitioner, Sadanandan Master was an active politician, who held the office of the Kerala vice president of the BJP, and his nomination was "solely on political affiliation".
Terming the petitioner's apprehensions "speculative" and "devoid of substance", the bench observed that there was no material to establish that Sadanandan Master was "not a distinguished person who has not earned distinction in his field of activity or that he would be unable to enrich parliamentary debate by reason of his expertise and knowledge in the relevant field".
It added that Article 80(3) of the Constitution was not amenable to judicial review merely on the allegations that a nominated member did not satisfy the criteria and the "legislative design" conferred a "broad discretion" on the President in the matter.
"The expressions 'special knowledge' and 'practical experience' are inherently evaluative in character and, once the constitutional discretion has been exercised, this Court would not sit in appeal over such assessment unless the nomination bears no reasonable nexus whatsoever with the categories contemplated under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India," the court said.
"None of the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner can be granted in the present PIL. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit," it ruled.
On July 12, 2025, the President nominated Sadanandan Master to the Rajya Sabha, invoking Article 80(3) of the Constitution.
Subhash Theekkadan, a practising lawyer, contended in court that based on the material presently available in the public domain, Sadanandan Master did not possess any nationally recognised specialisation, academic distinction, or substantial contribution in the fields of literature, science, art, or social service, as stipulated by Article 80(3).
In the judgement, the court ruled that the petitioner's claim was "conjectural in nature" and any previous participation in elections did not render Sadanandan Master ineligible for nomination under Article 80(3).
"The categories specified in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India are broad in their amplitude and do not exclude a person with a political background, provided such person otherwise possesses special knowledge or practical experience relatable, inter alia, to the field of social service.
"The allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 3 ( Sadanandan Master) are, therefore, unsubstantiated and bald, inasmuch as no specific material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that Respondent No. 3 lacks the qualifications necessary for nomination under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India, apart from the assertion that he has a political background," the court said.
The Centre contended that the PIL was not maintainable.
