B .

k Kapoor v uoi

https://journalsofindia.com/removal-of-sikkim-cm/

jaylaitha case 2001

The petition claimed that the reasons given in the EC's order are perverse and frivolous and the
intention was to "facilitate/ensure that the respondent no. 4 (Tamang) remains as Chief Minister
of Sikkim".

More or less in the similar case of the late J. Jayalalitha, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu,
the Supreme Court had decided: “If the majority political party elects a person as their leader,
whom the Constitution and the laws of the country disqualifies for being chosen as a member of
the legislative assembly, then such an action of the majority elected members would be a
betrayal of the electorate and the Constitution to which they owe their existence. In such a case,
the will of the people must be held to be unconstitutional and, as such, could not be and would
not be tolerated upon.

The people of India and so also the elected members to the legislative assembly are bound by
constitutional provisions and it would be the solemn duty of the people’s representatives who
have been elected to the legislative assembly to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, any act on
their part, contrary to the Constitution, ought not to have weighed with the Governor in the
matter of appointment of the Chief Minister to form the government.” Yet in this case , Tamang
with all his possible negatives was sworn in as the Chief Minister by the state Governor. The ECI
in its order has reduced his period of disqualification to 1 year and 1 month. It means that they
have accepted the disqualification, to be valid. For had it not been so, they could have simply
said that disqualification was not attracted in this case at all, which in fact was the plea of the
petitioner as well.