LexJAYA BACHCHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
JA YA BACHCHAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MAY 8, 2006
[Y.K. SABHARWAL,CJI, C.K. THAKKER
AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles /02(/)(a) and 103(2)-Member of Parliament-Holding Office
of profit-Disqualification-Member of Rajya .Sabha-Appointed by
Government of UP. as Chairperson of UP. Film Development Council-
Withfa:ed monthly honorarium and entertainment expenditure, staff car with
driver, personal staff and free accommodation etc.-Election Commission
held the said appointment of the MP. concerned as to an office of profit and
that s.3 of Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 did not
exempt the said office of profit from disqualification under Article 102 (/){a)-
Held, that the facilities mentioned in the O.M are pecuniary gains cannot
be denied-Where the office carries with it certain emoluments or the order
of appointment states that the person appointed is entitled to certain
emoluments, then it will be an office of profit, even if the hoider of the office
E
chooses not to receive/draw such emoluments-What is relevant is whether
pecuniary gain is "receivable" in regard to the office and not whether
pecuniary gain is, in fuct, received or received negligibly.
F
G
H
Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa, AIR (1954) SC 653;
Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa, [ 19711 3 SCC
870; Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev,
[199214 and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay & Ors., [200117SCC425,
relied on.
K.B. Rohamare v. Shankar Rao, [19751 1 SCC 252 and Bihari/al
Dobray v. Roshanlal Dubray, (1984) l SC 551, referred to.
Umrao Singh v. Darbara Singh, [196911SCR421 and Divya Prakash
v. Kultar Chand Rana & Anr., [197511 SCC 264, distinguished.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 199 of
2006.
110
JA YA BACHCHAN v. UNION OF INDIA
I 11
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
F.S. Nariman, Sr. Adv., Ejaz Maqbool, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Rohit
Mammen Alex, Vikas Singh, Taruna Singh, Abhijit Sinha, Advs. with him
for the Appellant.
A
S.N. Shukla, S.K. Rungta, Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Sarad
B
Singhania, Pratibha Jain, Acjvs., for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
The challenge in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India, is to the order of the Hon 'ble President of India, dated 16th March,
2006, whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (I) of Article
I 03 of the Constitution of India, the Hon 'ble President has decided, after
obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission as required by Article
I 03(2), that the petitioner stands disqualified for being a Member of the
Rajya Sabha on the From 14th day of July, 2004. The challenge is also to
the opinion dated 2nd March, 2006 rendered by the Election Commission
to the Hon'ble President, under clause (2) of Article 103, that the petitioner
became disqualified under Article 102(l)(a) of the Constitution for being a
Member of the Rajya Sabha on and from 14th July, 2004 on her appointment
by the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Chairperson of the U.P. Film
Development Council.
2. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, by Official Memorandum dated
14.7.2004, appointed the petitioner as the Chairperson ofUttar Pradesh Film
Development Council (for short 'the Council') and sanctioned to her the rank
of a Cabinet Minister with the facilities as mentioned in O.M. No. 14/1/46/
87-C. Ex.(!) dated 22.3.1991 (as amended from time to time). The benefits
to which she became entitled, as a consequence, are :
(i)
Honorarium of Rs. 5,000 per month;
c
D
E
F
(ii) Daily allowance @ Rs. 600 per day within the State and Rs. 750
outside the State. Rs. I 0,000 per month towards entertainment
G
expenditure.
(iii) Staff car with driver, telephones at office and residence, one P.S.,
one P.A. and two class IV employees.
(iv) Body Guard and night escort.
H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
(v) Free accommodation and medical treatment facilities to her and
B
c
D
E
F
family members.
(vi) Free accommodation in government circuit housesiguest house
and hospitality while on tour.
3. The Election Commission, after referring to the facts and the law
enunciated by this Court in several decisions, has expressed the opinion that
the office of Chairperson of the Council to which the petitioner was
appointed by the State Government by O.M. dated Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.