Shimla, May 30 (UNI) The Himachal Pradesh High Court has issued a notice to Kewal Singh Pathania, currently holding the post of Deputy Chief Whip, in response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the position itself.
The division bench comprising justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja passed the order while accepting the application filed by the petitioner.
The writ petition, filed in 2019 by advocate Rajneesh Maniktala, contends that the posts of Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip were created solely to accommodate political functionaries and are in violation of constitutional principles.
Senior advocate Rajneesh Maniktala, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the legislation brought in by the state to create these posts is ultra vires to the Constitution and places an additional burden on the exchequer.
The petition states that when the law was enacted in 2018, the state was already reeling under a debt of Rs. 41,000 crore, which has now ballooned to over Rs. 90,000 crore. “Irrespective of which party is in power, such positions are created to maintain political equilibrium and provide perks to loyalists at the taxpayers’ expense,” the petition claims.
The Jai Ram Thakur-led BJP government had introduced legislation in the Assembly in 2018 to create the posts of Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip, with provisions for cabinet-rank privileges. The appointments made under this legislation were challenged in the High Court soon after by Advocate Maniktala.
After the Congress government came to power under Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, the practice continued, with Kewal Singh Pathania being appointed to the Deputy Chief Whip post. His appointment, which remains in force, is now under judicial scrutiny.
Notably, in a related development last year, the Himachal Pradesh High Court declared the appointment of six Chief Parliamentary Secretaries unconstitutional — a ruling that has also been challenged and is pending further adjudication.
The current notice to Kewal Singh Pathania revives the legal debate over whether political appointments such as the Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip — enjoying the status and benefits of cabinet ministers — are consistent with constitutional norms or merely a tool to reward political loyalty.
The matter will be heard further in the coming weeks, as the court seeks a formal response from the state government and the respondent.
UNI ML PRS