M.V. RAJASHEKARAN AND ORS. versus VATAL NAGARAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 23-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.V. RAJASHEKARAN AND ORS. 
v. 
VATAL NAGARAJ AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 
Article 191-Disqualification-A person is disqualified if holding office 
.. 
C of profit under the Government of India/Government of the State unless the 
._ 
D 
'Office' is declared by he State legislature not to disqualifa its holder-
Object of disqualification-Elected member to carry on his duty fearlessly and 
without being subjected to any kind of pressure from the Government-
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 : Section 100(2). 
Karna/aka legislative (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956-
Sections 2(a), 2(b) and J(d). 
One Man Commission appointed by State Government-Remuneration · 
received cannot be equated with compensatory allowance-Not covered under 
E the exemption clause-Hence office of profit at/racting disqualification. 
First Respondent had been appointed as One Man Commission by 
the Government of Karnataka to study the problems of the Kannadigas 
in the Border areas of the State. The Commission was subsequently 
accorded the status of Minister of Cabinet rank and a sum "of Rs. 5 lacs 
F was provided to meet the expenses of pay and day to day expenditure. In 
the Karnataka Legislative Council Elections, First Respondent, filed his 
nomination paper. On scrutiny of the nomination papers and considering 
the objections, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination on the 
ground of his holding an office of profit. Aggrieved, First Respondent filed 
a Petition alleging that his nomination had been improperly rejected and 
G prayed for declaring the election void. High Court allowed the Petition 
by holding that the post of Chairman of the Commission, which petitioner 
was holding, not being an office much less an office of profit, did not incur 
any disqualification under Article 191 and consequently, rejection of his 
nomination was improper and directed the Returning Officer to accept 
his nomination and proceed with the election in accordance with law. 
I-I 
412 
• 
; 
• 
~-
M.V. RAJASHEKARAN v. VAT AL NAGARAJ 
413 
Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that having regard to the fact 
that the Government sanctioned money to defray expenses of the pay and 
other allowances of the said Commission, the One Man Commission was 
A 
an office of profit. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the 
word 'Office' was not defined either in the Constitution or in the B 
Representation of Peoples Act and so the test to be applied is whether it 
was subsisting, permanent, substantive which had an existence independent 
of the person who filled it; and that in the present case, for a limited 
purpose a person was appointed to discharge certain obligations which 
came to an end on submission of the report by the person concerned. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The very object of providing the disqualifications under 
Article 191 of the Constitution is that the person elected to the Legislative 
Assembly or Legislative Council should be free to carry on his duty D 
fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of Government pressure. 
The Court, therefore, is required to find out whether there exists any nexus 
.,_ 
between the duties discharged by the candidate and the Government and 
that a conflict is bound to arise between impartial discharge of such duties 
... 
in course of his employment with the duties which he is required to 
discharge as a member of Legislature. While examining the aforesaid E 
question, the Court has to look at the substance and not the form. 
1417-B-CI 
1.2. The question, whether it was an office of profit under the 
Government or not, has to be answered depending upon the facts peculiar 
to the case in hand with the object of finding out whether in fact the 
Government retain some control over the post which the incumbent was 
holding at the time of filing of nomination and was there any profit 
attached to the post in question. (420-A-B) 
F 
Rabindra Kumar Nayak v. Collector, Mavurbhani, Orissa and Ors., G 
(19991 2 SCC 627; Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surano, 11970) 2 SCR 
•).. 
835; Mahadeo v. Shantibhai and Ors., (19691 2 SCR 422 and Great Western 
Rai/wc,y Co. v. Bater, 8 Tax Cases 231, referred to. 
Ashok Kumar Bhattacharya v. A joy Biswas and Ors., 11985) 1 SCC 151; 
Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay and Ors., [2001 J 7 SCC 425 and Mahdukar H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.