LexPURNO AGITOK SANGMA versus PRANAB MUKHERJEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 585 PURNO AGITOK SANGMA v. PRANAB MUKHERJEE (Election Petition No. 1 of 2012) DECEMBER 5, 2012 AND DECEMBER 11, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. CHELAMESWAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B c Art. 58(2) - Qualifications for election as President of India - Expression 'office of profit' - Connotation of - Respondent holding office of Chairman of Council of Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata - Held (Per majority): In order to D be an office of profit, the office must carry pecuniary benefits or must be capable of yielding pecuniary benefits, which is not so in respect of Chairman, /SI - It was not such a post, which was capable of yielding any profit so as to make it, in fact, an office of profit- In any event, by the 2006 amendment E to s. 3 of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, the holder of the post of Chairman, /SI has been excluded from disqualification for contesting the Presidential election- Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 -s. 3. Art. 58(2) - Qualification for election as President of lndif'l - 'Office of profit' - Respondent holding the post of Leader of House in Lok Sabha - Held (Per majority): The disqualification contemplated on account of holding the post F of Leader of the House was with regard to the provisions of G Art.102(1)(a) of the Constitution, besides being the position of the leader of the party in the House, which did not entail the holding of an office of profit under the Government - /!J , any event, since the respondent had tendered his resignation 585 H 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A from the said post prior to filing of his nomination papers, which was duly acted upon by the Speaker of the House, challenge thrown by petitioner to respondent's election as President of India on the said ground loses its relevance - Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognized Parties and Groups B in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998. Art. 58 - Presidential election - Held: Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that election of the returned candidate should not be lightly interfered with unless C circumstancP.s so warrant. Supreme Court Rules, 1966: 0. 39, rr. 13 and 20 - Election petition challenging the election of respondent to the post of President of India - Held o (Per majority): In the facts and circumstances of the case, the election petition does not deserve a full and regular hearing . as contemplated under r. 20 of 0. 39 - Thus, the election petition cannot be set down for regular hearing and is dismissed under r. 13 of 0. 39 (J. Chelameswar and Ranjan E Gogoi, JJ. dissenting) - Presidential and Vice Presidentil Elections Act, 1952 - ss. 14 to 20 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 39, rr. 13 and 20 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 141 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 71 r/w Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry 72. F The petitioner, who lost the Presidential election to the respondent, filed the instant election petition under Art. 71 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with 0. 39 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, challenging the election of the respondent to the post of the President of G India on the ground that the respondent, at the time of filing of the nomination papers as a candidate for the Presidential election, held the office of Chairman of the Council of Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata and was also the Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha; and since H both the offices were offices of profit, the respondent PURNO AGITOK SANGMA v. PRANAB MUKHERJEE 587 stood disqualified from contesting the Presidential A election in view of Art. 58(2) of the Constitution. The. challenge was based mainly on the allegation that on the date of filing of nominations, the respondent held "offices of profit", namely (i) Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata; and (ii) Leader of the House in the Lok B Sabha. The stand of the respondent was that he was holding neither of the posts on the date of filing of nominations i.e. 28.6.2012, as he had resigned from both the posts on 20.6.2012. The election petition was listed for hearing on preliminary point in terms of 0. 39, r.13 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, as to whether the petition deserved a hearing as contemplated by r.20 of 0. 39 of the 1966 Rules. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: PER ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI (for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.