| Citation | AIR 2001 SC 3435 |
| Date of Judgment | 21 September 2001 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Case Type | Writ Petition (civil) 242 of 2001 |
| Petitioner | B.R. Kapoor |
| Respondent | State Of Tamil Nadu And anr |
| Bench | G.B. Pattanaik , S.P. Bharucha , Brijesh Kumar , Y.K. Sabharwal and Ruma Pal |
| Referred | Article 164 , 173 , 191 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The question of appointing an individual as chief minister under article 164(1) and 164(4) was being called in the case . While the aforesaid articles do not mention any qualification or disqualification that are required to be a chief minister under the Constitution of India . Article 173 of the Indian constitution imputes down the qualifications that are required for being a chief minister and article 191 sets out the disqualifications .
Jayalalitha ( respondent ) being convicted under section 13 and sentenced for 3 years of imprisonment whose appointment as the chief minister of the state was questioned as she was disqualified under article 191 . In the case , it happened that the elections of the legislative assembly of the state were held at 2001 , in which J.Jayalalitha from All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) secured a huge majority and was granted a campaign trail for the chief minister election , however she was refused permission to contest the elections . In 2000 , she was convicted and imprisoned in jail in cases under 1) section 409 of Indian Penal Code 1860 for 3 years 2) section 13 of prevention of corruption act , 1988 for 2 years for the unlawful act done during her earlier time as chief minister of Tamil Nadu between 1991-1996 .
The Election Commission Of India (ECI) rejected the papers of nomination for disqualification and restricting her permission to take part in elections . Section 8(3) disqualifies any person who has committed any offence and is sentenced to imprisonment for more than 2 years . The person is not allowed to take part in elections for a time period of 6 years from the release from the jail .
However , she still took part in elections after the tremendous win of AIADMK . She took oath as chief minister of the state of Tamil Nadu . Then , she appealed against her conviction in the high court , which suspended the imprisonment at that time under section 389 (3) of CPC , 973 and released the respondent on bail , however , final judgement is still pending .
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether a non-elected member , whose nomination for taking part in elections in the legislative assembly stood rejected , could still be appointed as chief minister under article 164 in the Indian Constitution ?
- Whether the governor’s decision under article 361 of the constitution fascinates judicial review ?
ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE
It was argued by the state of Tamil Nadu that there is absence of authorisation of qualification and disqualification for chief minister and minister under section 164(2) and said that the court does not have any power to purport the qualifications and disqualifications over the person as the constitution does not examine the qualification of a person . It was argued that the governor is not answerable to the court for any decision which is taken by him in duty of his office and use of the powers .
So , the nomination of Jayalalitha by the governor cannot be challenged by the court . It was said that in a parliamentary democracy , the will must persuade under any circumstances . As the majority of the people in the state of Tamil Nadu supported and voted for the respondent and elected him , the court or the Election Commission of India cannot stop the nomination of such a person .
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The court held that Jayalalitha should not be allowed to take part in elections as being disqualified under article 191 of the Indian Constitution . Article 173 states down the conditions of the person to take part in elections . Article 191 states about disqualification of a person from the member . According to the court , article 164 should be read with article 173 and article 191 . Article 164 talks about the state of the appointment of a person as a minister and date of becoming a member of the legislative assembly within 6 months .
Article 191 covers both the aspects of the article 164 which was been interpreted by the court . Article 164 (4) was first talked out in Harsharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh where the nomination of the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh was challenged that he was not a member of the legislative assembly at the time of the appointment. The court held that the council of ministers are collectively responsible to the legislative assembly of the state . The court depends upon the doctrine of constitutional morality .
It noticed that the people of India electing a person who has been disqualified from being a member of the legislative assembly to be their leader is against the principles of the constitution . The constitution is a sacred document , having legal morality that shapes the rules and regulations of the constitution . Any act done which is against the laws of the constitution should be held unconstitutional . The supreme court held that the power confer upon the governor under article 356(1) is conditional .
The issue of the writ quo warranto petition makes the person liable who is holding the office . However , in this case , the decision of the governor was under inspection but the person holding the office was inspected and the immunity granted to the governor under article 361 cannot stand as a barrier from issuing a writ of quo warranto to the individual .
REFERENCES
Written by JIYA MONGIA ( MAHARAJA AGRASEN INSITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES ), an intern under legal vidhiya.
