NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Friday (November 6, 2026) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought guidelines to prevent individuals facing serious criminal charges from being appointed as ministers or given important Cabinet portfolios, Bar and Bench reported.

Source: Bar and Bench

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the plea, which asked that the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers be required to take the criminal backgrounds of legislators into account while appointing ministers and assigning portfolios. The Bench dismissed the petition after an oral hearing; the remarks reported from the hearing are not part of a reasoned judgment, LawChakra reported.

Source: LawChakra

The petitioner clarified that the plea did not seek any additional disqualification under Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, which govern the appointment of Union and State ministers. It sought only that the discretion in selecting ministers be guided by standards of prudence. "All that I am saying is that the exercise of discretion has to be reasonable. There have to be certain parameters governing that discretion," the counsel submitted.

Justice Bagchi observed that the petitioner's argument was based on constitutional morality. "What you are arguing is constitutional morality. It is not binding," he said. Questioning the feasibility of such a framework, he added: "Criminal law is continuously weaponised against people who are in the democratic process, sometimes by their political opponents. In such a situation, would it not be left to the discretion of the Chief Minister to decide whether a particular criminal case is sufficiently embarrassing for the government to exclude that person from the Cabinet?"

"We are conscious of the fact that criminal prosecutions may follow a change of regime. We would be wading into that area," Justice Bagchi said, adding that the Court would be entering difficult territory if it attempted to frame such guidelines.

The petitioner relied on a 2025 analysis by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), according to which, of the 4,092 sitting MLAs analysed across State Assemblies and Union Territories, 1,861 (45 percent) had declared criminal cases and 1,205 (29 percent) had declared serious criminal cases. Counsel argued that Parliament has not taken adequate steps despite the Court having acknowledged the problem over a decade ago, and that a voter does not consent to a legislator with criminal antecedents becoming a Cabinet minister.

The dismissal leaves the choice of ministers and portfolios with the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, without any judicially framed filter based on pending criminal cases. On the Bench's reasoning, any change on this front lies with the political executive and Parliament rather than the courts.