Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 25.02.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 29.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2600/2026
SUBHASH THEEKKADAN .....Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineeth S. Varkalavila and Dr.
M.P. Raju, Advocates along with
Petitioner in person.
For the Respondents : Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.
Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC, Mr.
Ankur Mittal, CGSC, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Ms. Ipshita Dutta, Ms.
Rabaica Jaishwal, Mr. Naman, Mr.
Shubham Sharma and Mr.
Yashwardhan Sharma, Advocates for
UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (“ PIL ”), inter alia,
with the following prayers:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 1 of 11
“ a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that
the nomination of Respondent No. 3 to the Council of States (Rajya
Sabha) under Notification No. S.O.3196(E) dated 12 July 2025 is
unconstitutional and violative of Article 80(3) of the Constitution of
India;
b) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned nomination
of Respondent No.3;
c) Declare that the nomination of Respondent No. 3 is
unconstitutional, arbitrary, and void ab initio, as Respondent No. 3
does not posses the special knowledge or practical experience
mandated under Article 80(3) of the Constitution;
d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction restraining Respondent No. 3 from functioning,
acting, or discharging any duties as a nominated Member of the
Rajya Sabha pursuant to the impugned nomination;
e) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to
produce before this Hon’ble Court the entire original records, files,
notings, recommendations, and material relied upon in making the
impugned nomination;
f) Issue a writ of quo warranto declaring the nomination of
Respondent No. 3 under Article 80(3) as unconstitutional and void;
g) Declare that political work or party loyalty cannot be equated
with social service under Article 80(3);
h) Direct the Union of India to establish objective and
transparent guidelines for nominations under Article 80(3), ensuring
that nominations are made only on the basis of demonstrable and
independent excellence in the specified fields; ”
2. The Petitioner is a practising Advocate before the Supreme Court of
India, a social activist, and a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
It is asserted that the present PIL has been instituted bona fide and in public
interest, without any personal, political, or collateral motive, with the
avowed object of ensuring transparency and adherence to constitutional
principles in parliamentary nominations.
3. The Petitioner states that he has filed a sanction petition seeking
initiation of contempt proceedings against the Hon’ble Vice President of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 2 of 11
India in respect of alleged remarks concerning the judiciary. It is, however,
acknowledged that the Petitioner has not previously instituted any PIL
before any Court.
4. The challenge in the present Petition is directed against the
nomination of Respondent No. 3, Mr. C. Sadanandan Master, to the Rajya
Sabha under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India, which empowers the
Hon’ble President of India to nominate twelve persons possessing “special
knowledge or practical experience” in the fields of literature, science, art,
and social service.
5. Vide Notification dated 12.07.2025, four individuals came to be
nominated to the Rajya Sabha under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of
India. The Petitioner contends that, of the four nominees, three possess
nationally recognised eminence and substantial special knowledge or
practical experience in the fields contemplated by Article 80(3) of the
Constitution of India. In contrast, it is alleged that Respondent No. 3 does
not, based on of material presently available in the public domain, disclose
any comparable nationally recognised specialisation, academic distinction,
or substantial contribution in the fields of literature, science, art, or social
service. It is further contended that the absence of demonstrable material
evidencing the qualifications contemplated by Article 80(3) of Constitution
of India gives rise to a serious constitutional concern as to compliance with
the mandatory requirements of the said provision.
6. It is further contended that, although the nomination is formally made
in the name of the Hon’ble President of India, it is in substance an executive
act of the Union of India as the Hon’ble President of India acts on the aid
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 3 of 11
and advice of the Council of Ministers in terms of Article 74 of the
Constitution of India. On that basis, it is submitted that the impugned action
is amenable to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution
of India.
7. The Petitioner further submits that the procedure adopted for
nomination under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India remains opaque
and undisclosed, there being no publicly known structured mechanism
governing the identification, evaluation, or selection of persons possessing
“special knowledge or practical experience” within the meaning of that
provision. It is contended that, in the absence of a declared and transparent
procedure, a legitimate apprehension arises that the nomination process may
be reduced to political discretion rather than a merit-based constitutional
evaluation.
8. The Petitioner also submits that the scope and meaning of Article
80(3) of Constitution of India requires authoritative interpretation by this
Court so that the provision is not rendered illusory. Accordingly, a direction
is sought to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce before this Court the
original records, file noting, recommendations, and all material relied upon
for determining the eligibility of Respondent No. 3, to enable meaningful
judicial scrutiny.
9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.
3 is admittedly an active politician and presently holds the office of State
Vice President of the Bharatiya Janata Party. It was further submitted that
the background and experience of Respondent No. 3 are predominantly
political in nature, having contested the 2016 and 2021 Assembly Elections,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 4 of 11
and that he does not possess the special knowledge or practical experience in
the fields of literature, science, art, or social service, as contemplated by
Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, during
the Constituent Assembly Debates, the framers of the Constitution
underscored that the category of nominated members under Article 80(3) of
the Constitution of India was intended to enrich the Council of States with
the wisdom and expertise of eminent persons in specialised fields, and not of
active politicians. It was urged that any deviation from this constitutional
design by nominating persons, who do not fall within the indicated
categories would undermine the constitutional purpose and spirit of Article
80(3) of the Constitution of India.
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the nomination of
Respondent No. 3, allegedly founded solely on political affiliation and
devoid of the constitutionally mandated merit, is ex facie unconstitutional,
arbitrary, and violative of Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.
12. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
immediate judicial intervention is warranted, as those allegedly affected by
the impugned constitutional action may not be in a position to approach this
Court individually. The present Petition is, therefore, stated to have been
filed as a PIL on their behalf, in the interest of justice and constitutional
governance.
13. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India embodies the constitutional intent
that eminent individuals possessing special knowledge or practical
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 5 of 11
experience in the fields of literature, science, art, or social service should
contribute to the legislative process, and that any nomination inconsistent
with these criteria would amount to a breach of the constitutional mandate.
14. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the
Drafting Committee debates reflect the legislative intent underlying Article
80(3) of the Constitution of India, namely, that such nominations ought to be
confined to individuals of exceptional merit in literature, science, art, or
social service and ought not to become a vehicle for political favouritism or
nepotism.
15. It was also submitted that members of the Constituent Assembly had
expressed concern that conferring a broad power of nomination upon the
Hon’ble President of India, absent adequate safeguards, could invite allegations
of bias, diminish the dignity of the office, and dilute the constitutional objective
of enriching parliamentary deliberations with genuine expertise. Reference was
also made to alternative models, such as functional representation and advisory
bodies comprising eminent persons, to emphasise that the framers did not intend
nominations to be employed as a means of rewarding political loyalty.
16. On the aforesaid basis, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the Constituent Assembly Debates make it clear that any departure from this
purpose would amount to a subversion of constitutional intent.
17. In these circumstances, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the
nomination of Respondent No. 3 to the Rajya Sabha is unconstitutional and
violative of Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India, along with a
consequential prayer for quashing the said nomination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 6 of 11
18. In support, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia v.
Union of India & Anr. , Neutral Citation: 2012:DHC:7581-DB, wherein a PIL
had been instituted seeking quashing of the nomination of Mr. Sachin
Tendulkar to the Rajya Sabha on the ground that cricket did not fall within any
of the categories enumerated in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India. This
Court, after examining the scope of Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India,
held that sports fall within the category of art and culture and that expertise in
cricket is accordingly recognised within the categories specified therein. It was
further held that the expression “in respect of such matters as the following”
indicates that the categories mentioned in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of
India are illustrative and not exhaustive.
19. Per contra , the learned Additional Solicitor General (“ ASG ”) for
Respondent No. 1 submitted that the present PIL is not maintainable, the power
under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India not being amenable to judicial
review inasmuch as the Constitution of India vests the Hon’ble President of
India with the discretion to nominate individuals possessing special knowledge
or practical experience in the fields of literature, science, art, and social service.
It was further submitted that the Petitioner has no enforceable right to question
the nomination made by the Hon’ble President of India on the ground that
Respondent No. 3 allegedly does not satisfy the requirements of Article 80(3)
of the Constitution of India.
20. The learned ASG for Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the
experience of Respondent No. 3 in the field of politics is capable of being
understood within the ambit of science and social service, political service
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 7 of 11
forming part of social science and social service. On that basis, it was prayed
that the present PIL be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
21. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned ASG for Respondent No. 1.
22. Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India provides that:
“ 80. Composition of the Council of States
*
(3) The members to be nominated by the President under sub-
clause (a) of clause (1) shall consist of persons having special
knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as
the following, namely: --
Literature, science, art and social service. ”
23. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that the Hon’ble
President of India is empowered to nominate twelve members to the Rajya
Sabha from among persons possessing special knowledge or practical
experience in matters such as literature, science, art, and social service.
24. The categories set out in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India are
preceded by the expression “in respect of such matters as the following”,
which, as held by this Court in Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia (supra), makes it
clear that the categories are illustrative and not exhaustive.
25. Consequently, the discretion vested in the Hon’ble President of India
extends to the nomination of persons possessing special knowledge or practical
experience in the fields expressly mentioned therein or in cognate fields
relatable thereto. In that view of the matter, Article 80(3) of the Constitution of
India is not amenable to judicial review merely on the ground that, according to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 8 of 11
the Petitioner, a nominated member does not satisfy the stated criteria, since the
requirement of special knowledge or practical experience is couched in broad
terms and is not confined to rigid or narrowly circumscribed classes of activity.
26. Moreover, 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.
27. The constitutional text of Article 80 of the Constitution of India neither
prescribes any specific procedure for identifying persons to be nominated by
the Hon’ble President of India, nor does it furnish any further definitional
elaboration of the categories enumerated in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of
India. This legislative design indicates an intention to confer a broad discretion,
subject to the constitutional requirement that the person nominated must
possess special knowledge or practical experience relatable to the fields
contemplated by the provision.
28. In the absence of any further procedural stipulation in the Constitution of
India, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot read into Article
80(3) of the Constitution of India additional requirements or mechanisms that
the constitutional text itself does not provide, particularly when the provision
cannot be said to be ambiguous, vague, or manifestly arbitrary. The submission
of the Petitioner that Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India requires further
judicial supplementation or interpretation in the manner suggested by the
Petitioner is, therefore, without merit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 9 of 11
29. Insofar as the nomination of Respondent No. 3 is concerned, the
submissions advanced by the Petitioner are founded upon material stated to be
available in the public domain and proceed on the assumption that Respondent
No. 3 does not possess the special knowledge or practical experience
contemplated by Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.
30. Such submissions, however, remain conjectural in nature. The mere
circumstance that a nominated member has previously contested elections does
not, by itself, render such person ineligible for nomination under Article 80(3)
of the Constitution of India. As already observed, 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.
31. The allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 3 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.
32. This Court in Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia (supra) has observed that:
“33. We are further of the opinion that the framers of the
Constitution of India, by adopting the principle of nomination
in Rajya Sabha, ensured that the nation receives the services of
the most distinguished persons of the country who have earned
distinction in their field of activity. By nominating them to the
Rajya Sabha, the State enables them to enrich the debates by
their expertise and knowledge that they have in different
areas.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 10 of 11
33. In view of the above analysis, the Petitioner has placed no material
before this Court to establish that Respondent No. 3 is 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. The apprehensions sought to be raised
by the Petitioner are, therefore, speculative in nature and devoid of
substance.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, 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. There shall be no order as to
costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 29, 2026
‘gsr’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:59:37
W.P.(C) 2600/2026 Page 11 of 11