Presidential nominations under Article 80(3) are illustrative, broad, and generally beyond the scope of judicial review.

The Petitioner, an advocate and social activist, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the nomination of Respondent No. 3 (Mr. C. Sadanandan Master) to the Rajya Sabha

The nomination was made by the President of India via Notification dated 12.07.2025 under Article 80(3) of the Constitution

The Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3, a State Vice President of the Bharatiya Janata Party, lacks the "special knowledge or practical experience" in literature, science, art, or social service required by the Constitution

It was further alleged that the nomination process is opaque and used to reward political loyalty rather than merit

1. Whether the nomination of a member to the Rajya Sabha under Article 80(3) of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review on the grounds of the nominee's suitability or political background

2. Whether the categories of "Literature, science, art and social service" enumerated in Article 80(3) are exhaustive or illustrative

Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to nominate twelve members to the Council of States based on special knowledge or practical experience

The phrase "in respect of such matters as the following" renders the listed categories illustrative rather than exhaustive

Article 74, noting that the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers

The Court reasoned that because the categories in Article 80(3) are illustrative, the President possesses broad discretion to nominate individuals with expertise in those or "cognate fields"

The Court emphasized that "special knowledge" and "practical experience" are inherently evaluative terms; thus, the judiciary cannot sit in appeal over the executive's assessment unless there is no "reasonable nexus" to the constitutional categories

Regarding the nominee’s political background, the Court held that active participation in politics or contesting elections does not disqualify a person, as political service can be subsumed under the ambit of "social service" or "social science"

The Court found the Petitioner's claims to be "conjectural" and "unsubstantiated," ruling that the Constitution does not prescribe a specific procedural mechanism for selection that the Court can supplement

The Petitioner failed to produce material proving Respondent No. 3 lacked the requisite distinction to enrich parliamentary debate

The Court affirmed that judicial intervention is not warranted when constitutional discretion is exercised within the broad parameters of the illustrative fields mentioned in Article 80(3)

No costs were ordered