21. Shri K.K. Venugopal pointed out that the Chief Minister had not stated any reasons for not accepting the views of the Chief Justice. He also submitted that the Chief Minister did not even respond to the offer made by the Chief Justice to find sitting Judges for the Commission. He would also say that even the courtesy of a reply, was not extended by the Chief Minister to seventh respondent. The Attorney General in answer would submit that the power exercised by the Chief Minister is not in the nature of a quasi judicial power, and that there is no requirement of stating reasons. The only duty was to consider the views of the consultees and this the Chief Minister did, though he did not concur. In the light of the decision in S.P. Gupta’s case, no more is needed according to the Attorney General. The argument of Shri. K.K. Venugopal that there was no application of mind cannot be accepted, according to the Attorney General. A high functionary like the Chief Minister, must be credited atleast with reading and understanding the views of seventh respondent and the Chief Justice, submits Attorney General. It is true that the Chief Minister did not avail of the good offices of the Chief Justice, which he offered. He turned the Nelson’s eye to this. One may legitimately infer that the Chief Minister was not interested in that direction, and that he was keen on following his own inclinations. As no degree of interaction, except by way of advertence, is postulated, even this attitude of the Chief Minister will not justify a finding that consultation was not complete. In the light of S.P. Gupta’s case, wherein it is stated that the final word is with the consultor, and that the role of the other functionaries is only consultative, leaving it open to the consultor ‘to over-ride the opinion’ of the consultees, it has to be held that there was consultation. There is no need to state reasons or answer the objections. There is no legal litmus test to ascertain the reasons that weighed with the Chief Minister, and it is not necessary either, so long as malafides do not taint the process. Disagreement cannot be understood as non-application of mind. Whether the Chief Minister would have profited by accepting the views of the Chief Justice based on very valid considerations, or whether he should not have extended the courtesy of writing to the Leader of Opposition, are matters of opinionThe further argument of Shri. K.K. Venugopal is that a more meaningful consideration is required in a situation where the Act confers vast powers on the Commission - a power virtually to interfere with the
