LexELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015) 6 S.C.R. 67
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
v.
BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8850 of 2015)
APRIL 09, 2015
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
A
B
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 9A - Dis-
qualification for Government contracts, etc. - Petitioner c
elected,to State Legislative Assembly from an Assembly
Constituency - Thereafter, declaration by Governor that
petitioner incurred disqualification stipulated u/s. 9A since
the petitioner entered into culprit contracts with the State
after his election to the Legislative Assembly - Issuance of D
Notification that seat occupied by the petitioner fell vacant
and press note announcing election schedule for filling up
vacancy in the said Constituency- Writ petition by the peti-
tioner- Subsequently, issuance of Notification, notifying the
election to fill up the said Assembly Constituency - Interim E
order by the High Court staying the election process - On
appeal, held: Purpose of s. 9A is to maintain the purity of the
legislature and to avoid conflict of personal interest and duty
of the legislators - It would be strange logic that persons
with a subsisting contract with the government are perceived F
to be undesirable to become members of the legislature as
there is a likelihood of conflict between their duty as legisla-
tors, if elected and their personal interest as contractors, but
legislators can enter into contracts with the government with G
impunity-Any interpretation of s. 9A which goes to assist a
legislator who directly enters into a contractual relationship
with the State for deriving monetary benefits should be
avoided and be given a construction which eliminates the
possibility of creating such situation where the duty is cer- H
67
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 6 S.C.R.
A tainly bound to conflict with personal interest- On facts, sub-
mission that the disqualification prescribed uls. 9A operates
only at the threshold thereby rendering a person ineligible
for contesting any election thus, the petitioner did not incur
any disqualification; and that disqualification operate only
B during the subsistence of the culprit contracts but not after
they ceased to subsist, cannot be accepted - Instant case
does not fall within the blanket ban on ttie /itigative challenges
to the electoral steps - Interim order granted by High Court
justified - Person aggrieved by a decision of the Governor
C u!Art. 192 can approach the High Court within the period
specified.
D
Dismissing the transferred case and disposing of
the SLP, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Acquisition of a disqualification
contemplated under Article 191 of the Constitution is an
incident which entails a legal consequence of rendering
the seat (occupied by such a Legislator who acquired
E the disqualification) vacant by operation of law. Article
192 only prescribes the forum and stipulates the
procec;lure for determination of the fact whether a
Legislator has incurred the disqualification. Article 192
does not provide for removal of a member from the
F Legislature by an action of the Governor. It only obligates
the Governor to decide whether a Legislator has incurred
anyone of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1)
of Article 191. The vacancy occurs by virtue of
constitutional declaration contained in Article 190 clause
G (3). The removal takes place by virtue of the operation
of law on the happening of the event, that is, the
acquisition of a disqualification. The fact that the
disqualification uls. 9A of the Representation of the
H People Act, 1951 subsists only for a limited period of
time, makes no difference to the consequences flowing
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. BAJRANG
69
BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.
from the occurrence of such disqualifying EVENT. [Paras A
33) {88-A-D]
1.2. The happening of any one of the disqualifying
EVENTS has the effect of making the seat occupied by
such a disqualified person vacant immediately by B
operation of law. The effect of the decision of the
Governor under Article 192 is only to decide whether a
legislator acquir~d the disqualification on a particular
date on the hiP.pening of one of the disqualifying
EVENTS contemplated u/s. 191. The consequence is that C
the legislator who acquires the disqualification ceases
to be a Member of the Legislature with effect from the
date of the acquisition of the disqualification. However,
the cessation of the disExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.