Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an election challenge against the appellant, Maulana Abdul Shakur, who was elected to the Council of States. The first respondent contended that the appellant held an office of profit under the Government, disqualifying him from election under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appellant was the manager of a school under the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, receiving a salary from the Durgah Endowment funds, not from the Government. The Election Tribunal initially set aside the appellant's election, agreeing with the respondent's claim. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant's appointment was under a statutory body, not the Government, and thus he did not hold an office of profit under the Government. The court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the respondent and concluded that the election was valid. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside, with costs awarded to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Disqualification for Election - Office of Profit - Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - The appellant was not holding an office of profit under the Government of India as he was appointed by a statutory body, the Durgah Committee, and not by the Government. The court held that the election of the appellant was valid as he did not fall under the disqualification provisions of the Constitution (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant held an office of profit under the Government of India at the time of election, disqualifying him under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Election Tribunal, and declared the election of the appellant valid, awarding costs to the appellant.
Law Points
- Disqualification for election
- office of profit
- statutory body
- election petition
- interpretation of constitutional provisions
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1957
S.R. Das, Venkatarama Ayyar, B.P. Sinha, J.L. Kapur, A.K. Sarkar
Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava, Naunit Lal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election dispute regarding the validity of the appellant's election to the Council of States.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to uphold his election against the challenge posed by the first respondent.
Filing Reason
The first respondent filed an election petition claiming the appellant was disqualified due to holding an office of profit.
Previous Decisions
The Election Tribunal initially set aside the appellant's election based on the claim of disqualification.
Issues
Whether the appellant held an office of profit under the Government of India
Whether the election of the appellant was valid under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that he was appointed by a statutory body and not by the Government, thus not holding an office of profit.
The respondent contended that the appellant was under the control of the Government and therefore disqualified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant's appointment as manager of the school did not constitute an office of profit under the Government of India, as he was appointed by a statutory body and not by the Government.
Judgment Excerpts
Held, that the appellant was holding his appointment under a committee which was a statutory body and could not be considered as the holder of an office of profit under the Government of India.
The majority of the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant held an office of profit under the Government.
Procedural History
The appellant was elected on March 22, 1956, and the election was challenged by the first respondent through an election petition filed on May 2, 1956. The Election Tribunal set aside the election on January 31, 1957, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955: 4(1), 5, 6, 9, 11, 20
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: 81
- Constitution of India: Article 102(1)(a)
