KIRPAL SINGH, M.L.A. versus UTTAM SINGH & ANR.

ClilNNAPPA REDDY, J, Shri Kirpal Singh was elected to Punjab Legislative Assembly from Majitha Constituency general elections held in 1972. His election was set aside High Court in an Election Petition filed by one of the defeated candidates on the ground that the nomination paper of another candidate was improperly rejected the Returning OffiGer.

p. 623, margin C

nomination paper of one Basant Singh had been rejected on the ground that Basant Singh was a development officer in the employment of the Life Inaurance Corporation and was therefore ineligible to seek election to the Assembly under the Staff Regulationa of the Life Inaurance Corporation. The High Court took the view that if Basant Singh defied the Staff Regulations and sought election to the Assembly he might have made himself liable to disciplinary action but that did not disqualify him from see~ng election to the Assembly. So the nomination paper of Basant Singh was held to have been improperly rejected and the election of Kirpal Singh was set aside. His election having been set aside he appealed to this Court under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People . Act. While admitting the appeal, this Court made an interim order enabling the appellant to attend the Assembly and sign the register, without participating in the proceedings or voting and without drawing any reDllneration. Without meaning any disrespect to the learned judges who made the interim order we think that where an election is set aside for no fault of his, such as a corrupt practice comnitted by him or his agent or a disqualification suffered by him, but on the ground that someone else's nomination had been improperly rejected, the more appropriate order would perhaps be to grant an absolute stay so that the Conatituency may not go unrepresented for no fault of either the elected or those who elected.

p. 624, margin A

Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, there have been three more general electiona. The present appeal has thus beeome wholly infructuous, indeed a sad commentary on the legal process. Though the question raised is an important one which may arise again and again in the future we do not propose to make any pronouncement upon it since we think the. matter is one which should receive the conaideration of the Parliament and suitable legislation be enacted. Under Art. 191(1) of the Conatitution a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State - (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an off ice declared by the Legislature of the State law not to disqualify its holder ; (b) if he is of unaound mind and stands so declared a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; (e) if he is so disqualified or under any law made

pp. 624–625, margin C

by Parliament. Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act which certainly is a law made Parliament within the meaning of Art. 19l(l)(e) of the Constitution enwnerates some further grounds of disqualification for nembership of Parliament and State Assemblies. In particular we may refer to Section 10 which says, "Disqualification for office under Government Company - A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, he is a managing agent, manager or secretary of any company corporation (other than a co-operative society) in the capital of which· the appropriate Government has not less than twenty-five per cent

p. 625

share."

p. 625, margin C

The clear and undoubted object of Art. 19l(l)(a) to (e) and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (including sec. 10) is the preservation of the purity and integrity cf the election process preventing Government or State employees from taking part in the elections. But then sec. 10 appears to confine the disqualification, in so far as it relates to employees of Government Companies to the •top-brass• only if such an uncouth expression may be allowed to creep into the judgment of a Court. Nowadays the activities of the State are so manifold and prolific that the State has been forced, in the interests of better management and administration and in order to further the Di rec ti ve Principles of State Policy, to set up varlous Corporations which are but mere instrumentalities of the State. Is the principle of Art. 191(1)(e) then to be extended to employees of State Corporations also by enacting appropriate laws under Art. 19l(l)(e)? Or are employees of Public Corporations to be treated differently from employees of the Government? Are not some of them in a better position to exert undesirable pressure, than Government employees? the other hand, are a trerrendously large number of employees of Public Corporations to be denied the opportunity of being chosen, as representatives of the People? Do all the considerations applicable to Government Employees equally apply to employees of Public Sector Undertakings? ls there no distinguishing feature. Are a large mass of highly or moderately literate people to denied the right to speak for the people? ls the right to be elected, to confined, without meaning any disrespect to anyone to the professional politicians only? These are some of the vital questions posed and which require to answered. The answer should be best given by the elected representatives of the people themselves. are not shirking the decision of these questions but our decision can only be confined to interpretation. Not so, Parliament which can decide upon the Policy. That is why, we recomnend to the Government to have the matter examined by the Law Commission very early. When a suitable occasion arises in the future we will, of course, deal with the matter, probably helped by new legislation.

pp. 625–626, margin C

The High Court has awarded costs against the appellant. That was uncalled for. set aside that part of the order. express no opinion on the other questions. The appellant will receive his remuneration for the period for which he was elected as a legislator.

p. 626, margin C