Soren was holding office of profit: SC

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, JULY 19. The Supreme Court set aside the election of Mr. Shibu Soren, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (S) leader to Rajya Sabha in June 1998, on the ground that he was holding ``an office of profit'' under the State Government as chairman of the Interim Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (JAAC) set up under the JAAC Act, 1994 at the time of his filing of his ``nomination papers'' and was thus disqualified to contest election to Rajya Sabha.

Delivering the judgment, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dr. A.S. Anand, on close analysis of the relevant provisions of the JAAC Act 1994, noted that Mr. Shibu Soren (appellant) was nominated (appointed) by the State Government as Chairman of the interim JAAC.

He (appellant) was to hold office ``at the pleasure of the State Government'' which ``had the right to remove or dismiss the holder of that office, besides controlling the manner of functioning of the Interim Council and providing funds for the Interim Council out of which a honorarium of Rs. 1,750/- per month - (besides daily allowance, rent-free accommodation and a chauffeur driven car at the state expense) - was paid to the appellant,'' the CJI observed adding that all this ``was a benefit capable of bringing about a conflict between the duty and interest of the appellant as a Member of Parliament - the precise vice to which Article 102 (1)(a) is attracted''.

According to Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution - which deals with disqualifications to being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament - (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chose as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament - (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;

The Bench, which included Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil, affirmed a verdict of the Patna High Court which allowed an election petition from Mr. Dayanand Sahay (first respondent) against the election of the appellant to Rajya Sabha and, instead, declared Mr. Dayanand Sahay duly elected.

The Bench, in dismissing an appeal from the appellant against the HC's verdict, said that ``both Articles 102(1)(a) and Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution were incorporated with a view to eliminate or in any event reduce the risk of conflict between duty and interest amongst Members of the Legislature so as to ensure that the concerned legislator does not come under an obligation of the Executive, on account of receiving pecuniary gain or profit from it, which may render him amenable to influence of the Executive, while discharging his obligations as a legislator.''

(Article 191(1)(a) lays down similar disqualifications for being chosen as or for being a Member of the Legislative Council or Assembly of a State).

The appellant urged that even if the office held by him as Chairman of the Interim Council was to be construed as ``office of profit under the State Government'', the disqualification provided for under Article 102(1)(a) stood remove by Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, since as Chairman of Interim Council, he enjoyed the `status' of a Minister.

The argument was rightly repelled by the High Court observing that nowhere in the JAAC Act was it provided that the Chairman of the Interim JAA Council enjoyed the status of a Minister, the Bench said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Farooq meets Advani
Next     : DMK pressuring Advani to `punish' officials