SHIBU SOREN versus DAYANAND SAHAY AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 19-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHIBU SOREN 
v. 
DAY ANAND SAHA Y AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
C 
Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959-Disqualification I 
of member of Parliament-Exemption from disqualification by Parliament-
H eld, the office of the Interim Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council set up 
under the relevant Act is not included under the Schedule to the I959 Ac/-
Chairman of Interim Council does not enjoy the status of a Minister-
D Disqualification not removed by Parliament-Hence, the appellant is 
disqualified ji-om being member of Rajya Sabha-Constitution of India-
Article 102(J)(a). 
Constitution of India-Article 102(1}(a}-Disqualification of member 
of Parliament-Office of Profit under the State Government-Election of 
E 
appellant as member of Rajya Sabha-Appellant was Chairman of Interim 
Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council set up under the relevant Act drawing 
honorarium, daily allowances besides accommodation and car at the relevant 
time-Held, daily allowances to meet out of pocket expenses are not profit-
Honorarium and other perquisites are pecuniary gain to the appellant-
Interim Council is an agency of the State Government-Thus, the appellant 
F 
was holding an office of profit under State Government-Hence disqualified-
Election of appellant set aside-Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 
1994. 
Words & Phrases: 
G 
'Office of Profit '-Meaning of in the context of Election laws. 
H 
Appellant was holding the office of Chairman of Interim Council set up 
under the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 1994. He was entitled 
to honorarium, daily allowances and travelling allowance besides 
accommodation and a car. Appellant and seven respondents filed their 
1020 
I 
Sl-IIBU SOREN v. DAY ANAND SAHAY 
1021 
nomination papers pursuant to a notification issued by Election Commission A 
for filling up seven seats ofRajya Sabha. The appellant and respondents 2 to 
7 were declared elected. Respondent 1, who was defeated, filed an election 
petition before High Court under the provisions of Representation of Peoples 
Act, 1951 challenging the election of the appellant to the Rajya Sabha on the 
ground that the appellant was holding 'an office of profit' under the State B 
Government at the time of filing nomination papers. The High Court allowed 
the election petition and declared the election of the appellant void. It also 
declared respondent 1 as duly elected to the Rajya Sabha. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the payment of 
honorarium is not a payment of salary or remuneration; that the payment 'C 
cannot constitute an 'office of profit' unless it gives .is some pecuniary gain 
to the appellant that the office held by him as Chairman of the Interim Council 
is not an office of profit under the State Government; and that if the office 
held by him as Chairman of the Interim Council was to be construed as an 
office of profit under the State Government, the disqualification provided for 
under Article 102(1)(a) stood removed since as Chairman oflnterim Council, D 
the appellant enjoyed the status of a Minister. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Articles 102(1) and 19l(l)(a) of the Constitution were 
incorporated with a view to eliminate or in any event reduce the risk of E 
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 the influence of the Executive, while discharging 
his obligations as a legislator. 11026-A-B) 
Bihari/al Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dobray, 119841 1 SCC 551, referred 
to. 
F 
1.2. The word 'profit' for the purpose of Article 102(1)(a) or Article 
191(1)(a) of the Constitution connotes an idea of pecuniary gain, though G 
neither the label under which it is paid nor the quantum of the amount may 
always be material to determine the issue. Payment of daily allowances was 
intended to meet out of pocket expenses of the appellant and were in the 
nature of compensatory allowances .and were not a source of profit. The 
payment of honorarium was clearly in the nature of giving some pecuniary 
gain to the appellant and was not intended to compensate the appellant for his H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A out of pocket expenses. The grant of honorarium besides other

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