Case Note & Summary
The case involved an election dispute concerning the election of Maulana Abdul Shakur to the Council of States from Ajmer. The appellant was the manager of a school run by a committee of management constituted under the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955. The respondent, an unsuccessful candidate, challenged the election on the ground that the appellant held an office of profit under the Government of India and was therefore disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. The election was held on March 22, 1956, and the appellant received 19 votes against 7 for the respondent, with 3 invalid votes. The appellant had filed two nomination papers on February 28, 1956, and a third on March 1, 1956. The Returning Officer rejected the two papers filed on February 28 on the ground that under the Durgah Khwaja Saheb (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1950, then in force, the appellant held an office of profit under the Government, but accepted the third nomination because the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, came into force on March 1, 1956, and under that Act the appellant no longer held such an office under the Government. The respondent filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, contending that even under the 1955 Act the appellant held an office of profit under the Government. The Election Tribunal by majority set aside the election and declared the respondent elected, holding that the appellant held an office of profit under the Government on March 1, 1956; the Chairman dissented. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court assumed that the appellant held an office of profit but examined whether that office was under the Government of India. It noted the difference in language between Article 102(1)(a) and Articles 58(2) and 66(4), which include offices under any local or other authority subject to Government control; Article 102(1)(a) does not include such offices. The Court examined the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, and found that the Durgah Committee was a body corporate with perpetual succession, its members appointed by the Central Government but the committee itself being a statutory body. The appellant was appointed as manager by the Administrator, not by the Central Government, and his salary was paid from Durgah Endowment funds, not fixed by the Government. The Court held that the appellant held appointment under a statutory body and therefore did not hold an office of profit under the Government of India within the meaning of Article 102(1)(a). It distinguished Shivnandan Sharma v. The Punjab National Bank Ltd. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Election Tribunal's order, and upheld the appellant's election, rejecting the respondent's prayer to be declared elected.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Disqualification of Members - Office of Profit under Government - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 102(1)(a) - The controversy was whether the appellant, as manager of a school run by a committee of management constituted under the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, held an office of profit under the Government of India, which would disqualify him under Article 102(1)(a). The Court examined the language of Article 102(1)(a) and contrasted it with Articles 58(2) and 66(4) for President and Vice-President, noting that the latter include offices under local or other authority subject to Government control, whereas Article 102(1)(a) does not. Held that the appellant's appointment was under a statutory body, not under the Government, and therefore no disqualification arose. B) Constitutional Law - Statutory Bodies - Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, Sections 4(1), 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 20 - The Court examined the provisions of the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, under which the Durgah Committee was a body corporate with perpetual succession, members appointed by Central Government but committee itself being a statutory corporation. The appellant was appointed as manager by the Administrator, not by the Central Government, and his salary was paid from Durgah Endowment funds, not fixed by Government. Held that the appellant held appointment under a committee which was a statutory body, not under the Government of India, and therefore Article 102(1)(a) did not apply. C) Election Law - Validity of Election - Council of States - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81 - The respondent challenged the appellant's election on the ground that his nomination paper filed on March 1, 1956 was invalid due to disqualification. The Election Tribunal majority had set aside the election and declared respondent elected, holding the appellant held office of profit under Government. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the appellant was not disqualified because the office was not under Government; hence nomination valid and election valid. The respondent's prayer to be declared elected was rejected. D) Precedent - Distinguishing Earlier Decision - Shivnandan Sharma v. The Punjab National Bank Ltd., (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1427 - The Court distinguished the earlier decision because the facts and statutory context differed; in the present case, the appointing authority was a statutory body independent of direct Government control over the appellant's position, whereas the earlier case concerned a different relationship. Held that the ratio of the earlier case was not applicable to the present statutory scheme.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, as manager of a school run by a committee of management constituted under the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, held an office of profit under the Government of India and was thereby disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India from being chosen as a member of Parliament.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal, and upheld the election of the appellant. It held that the appellant held appointment under a statutory body, not under the Government of India, and therefore was not disqualified under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. The respondent's prayer to be declared elected was rejected.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India disqualifies a person only if he holds an office of profit under the Government of India or a State Government
- not under a local or other authority subject to Government control
- contrast with Articles 58(2) and 66(4) which include offices under any local or other authority subject to Government control
- Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act
- 1955 creates a statutory committee which is a body corporate
- appointment by a statutory body does not constitute holding an office under the Government
- office of profit must be held directly under the Government to attract disqualification under Article 102(1)(a)
