The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the justiciability of a public interest litigation challenging the nomination of BJP leader C Sadanandan Master to the Rajya Sabha. The Court asked whether any “judicially manageable standard” exists to assess a nominee’s competence or qualifications under the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia raised the issue while hearing a plea alleging that Master lacks the “special knowledge or practical experience” required under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.
The President of India nominated Master on July 12 last year. Other nominees on the same date included Ujjwal Deorao Nikam, former Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla, and historian Dr Meenakshi Jain.
Court questions standard for adjudication
Advocate Subhash Theekkadan filed the PIL, contending that no publicly available material demonstrates Master’s nationally recognised specialisation, academic distinction, or substantial contribution in literature, science, art, or social service, as mandated by Article 80(3).
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that Master does not possess expertise in social service. He described Master as a former school teacher who later entered politics.
Responding to the submissions, Chief Justice Upadhyaya said the Court would require an objective benchmark to adjudicate such claims.
“How do we determine this? What is the judicially manageable standard to assess whether someone is competent or not? Are we equipped with any such standard to judge if Mr X is competent in literature or arts? These are not issues capable of judicial determination. Filing a petition is one thing, but maintainability and justiciability are different,” the Chief Justice observed.
Drawing an analogy, he added, “Whether Sachin Tendulkar was a better player or Vinod Kambli was a better player is for cricket experts to decide, not courts. We lack that expertise.”
Union opposes plea; Court to decide on notice
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union Government, opposed the plea. He submitted that no judicially recognised standards exist for evaluating nominations under Article 80(3). He also argued that, in the case of politicians, social service has a direct nexus with their public life.
After hearing the submissions, the Court indicated that it would pass orders on whether to issue notice to the respondents.
Plea alleges lack of transparency; seeks restraint and guidelines
The petition argues that the absence of demonstrable material showing constitutional eligibility raises serious concerns about compliance with Article 80(3). It further claims that no publicly known mechanism exists to identify, evaluate, or select persons with special knowledge or practical experience under the provision.
The plea states that it remains unclear whether authorities apply objective criteria, independently verify credentials, record reasons, or adopt institutional safeguards to ensure meaningful compliance with the constitutional mandate.
According to the petitioner, the absence of a transparent procedure creates a legitimate apprehension that political discretion, rather than merit, drives the nomination process. Such practices, the plea contends, dilute the institutional integrity of the Rajya Sabha and undermine deliberative democracy.
Apart from challenging Master’s nomination, the PIL seeks to restrain him from functioning as a nominated Rajya Sabha member. It also seeks a declaration that political work or party loyalty cannot be equated with social service under Article 80(3). Additionally, the petitioner has sought guidelines to ensure nominations rest only on demonstrable and independent excellence in the specified fields.
Advocate Vineeth S Varkalavila has filed the petition on behalf of the petitioner.
Case Title: Subhash Theekkadan @ Subhash TM v. Union of India & Ors.
