Case analysis by

Edwin Clemance Thottappilly

R120219014
B.Tech L.L.B. (5th semester)

B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu : the i i i i t

Jayalalitha case
i i

Introduction

Appointment of an individual as a Minister or the Chief Minister under i i i i i i i i i i i

Article 164(1) and Article 164(4) was being called into question in the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

case of B.R Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu. While the aforementioned

i i i i i i i i i i i i

articles do not mention any qualification or disqualification that are

i i i i i i i i i i

required for being a Chief Minister or a Minister, can a person who is

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

appointed as a Chief Minister be called into question for not fulfilling

i i i i i i i i i i i i

the qualifications or incurring the disqualifications mentioned under

i i i i i i i i

the Constitution of India? Article 173 of the Constitution lays down the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

qualifications that are required for being a Minister or a Chief Minister

i i i i i i i i i i i i

whereas Article 191 enumerates the disqualifications.

i i i i i i

Jayalalitha having being convicted under Section 13 of the Prevention

i i i i i i i i i

of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced for 3 years of imprisonment

i i i i i i i i i i i

was the respondent in the case whose appointment as the Chief

i i i i i i i i i i i

Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu was questioned as she was clearly
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

disqualified under Article 191 and Section 8(3) of the Representation of

i i i i i i i i i i i

the People Act, 1951. Section 8(3) states that any person who has been
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

convicted of any offence and sentenced for not less than 2 years shall
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

be disqualified from being a member of the Parliament or the State

i i i i i i i i i i i i
i Legislative Assembly or the council from the date of conviction to six i i i i i i i i i i i

i years of her release. i i i

Facts

The facts of B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. presented before
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the court was that:-

i i i i i

The elections to the Legislative Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu

i i i i i i i i i i i

were held in 2001, in which J. Jayalalitha from All India Dravida

i i i i i i i i i i i i

Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) secured a landslide majority and was

i i i i i i i i i

granted candidature for the Chief Ministerial election, however, she

i i i i i i i i i

was denied permission to contest the elections.

i i i i i i i

In the year 2000, she was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in

i i i i i i i i i i i

two separate cases, firstly under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code,
i i i i i i i i i ii i i

1860 for three years and under Section 13 of the Prevention of

i ii i i i i i i i i i i

Corruption Act, 1988 for two years, for offences committed during her
i i i ii i i i i i i i

earlier tenure as Chief Minister of the State between 1991-1996.

i i i i i i i i i i iii

The Election Commission of India (ECI) rejected her nomination papers

i i i i i i i i i

for disqualification under provisions of Representation of People’s Act,

i i i i i i i i i

1951 , thereby denying her permission to contest elections. Section

i i i i i i i i i i

8(3) of the RPA disqualifies any person who is convicted of any offence
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for more than two years. The
i i i i i i i i i i i

person is not permitted to contest elections from the date of such

i i i i i i i i i i i i

elections to a period of six years from his release. However, she still
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

contested election and after a landslide victory of AIADMK she took

i i i i i i i i i i i

oath as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Further, she had gone on
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

appeal against her conviction to the High Court, who at that time
i i i i i i i i i i i i

suspended the sentences of imprisonment under Section 389(3) of the

i i i i i i i i i
i Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and released the respondent on
i i i i ii i i i i

i bail, however, the final judgment was still pending.

i i i i i i i i

Issues Raised i

Whether a person who is disqualified to be a member of the State

i i i i i i i i i i i i

Legislature can be appointed as the Chief Minister under Article

i i i i i i i i i i

164(4)?
i

Whether the will of people plays a significant role while barring them
i i i i i i i i i i i

from contesting elections?

i i i

Whether the Governor’s decision under Article 361 of the Constitution

i i i i i i i i i

attracts judicial review?

i i i i

Arguments advanced i

Firstly, it was argued by the State that there is a lack of prescription of

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

qualifications or disqualifications for the Chief Minister and the Council

i i i i i i i i i i

of Ministers under Section 164(2). The respondents further argued

i i i i i i i i i

that the Court does not have the power to import qualifications and
i i i i i i i i i i i i

disqualifications upon a candidate since the Constitution does not

i i i i i i i i i

contemplate the credentials of a person a non-member minister. In

i i i i i i i i i i

other words, it is not appropriate for the Court to incorporate such

i i i i i i i i i i i i

disqualifications that are not enumerated in the Constitution of India.

i i i i i i i i i i i

Secondly, in a Parliamentary Democracy, the will of the people must

i i i i i i i i i i

prevail under any circumstances. Since the election of the respondent

i i i i i i i i i i

was supported by the majority of the people in the state, the ECI or the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Court cannot bar the appointment of such a person.

i i i i i i i i i

Lastly, it was contended that a Governor is immune to judicial review

i i i i i i i i i i i

under Article 361, that is, he is not answerable to the judiciary for any
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

decision taken by him in the exercise of performance of the powers

i i i i i i i i i i i i
i and duty of his office. Thus, the appointment of Jayalalitha by the
i i i i i i i i i i i

i Governor cannot be challenged in the Court of law. i i i i i i i i

Judgement

According to the Court, all the sub-articles of Article 164 shall be readi i i i i i i i i i i i

together, along with Articles 173 and 191. Article 173 lays down the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

conditions a person should satisfy to contest elections, while Article

i i i i i i i i i i

191 talks about disqualifying a person from becoming or continuing as

i i i i i i i i i i i

a member. Article 164 takes into account two significant stages, first
i i i i i i i i i i i

the date of appointment of a person as a Minister and second as the

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

date of becoming a member of the Legislative Assembly within six

i i i i i i i i i i i

months. The Court interprets that Article 191 covers both the first and
i i i i i i i i i i i i

second stages mentioned under Article 164. Hence, it was held that
i i i i i i i i i i i

J.Jayalalitha should not be allowed to contest elections for being

i i i i i i i i i i

disqualified under Article 191 of the Indian Constitution.

i i i i i i i i i

The Court relied on the doctrine of Constitutional morality while

i i i i i i i i i

addressing the second issue. It observed that people of this country

i i i i i i i i i i i

electing a person to be their leader, who is disqualified from being a

i i i i i i i i i i i i i

member of the Legislative Assembly is against the morals of the

i i i i i i i i i i i

Constitution. The Constitution is a sacrosanct document, having

i i i i i i i i

special legal sanctity that carves the rules and framework within which
i i i i i i i i i i i

different organs of the Constitution operate. Therefore, when the

i i i i i i i i i

legislative or executive commit an act that goes against the values of

i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Constitution it must be held unconstitutional and illegal.

i i i i i i i i i i

In this issue, the Apex Court held that the power bestowed upon the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

Governor under Article 356(1) is conditional, and the court is qualified

i i i i i i i i i i i

as well as entitled to examine whether the condition has been satisfied

i i i i i i i i i i i i

or not. Moreover, the issuance of a quo warranto writ petition makes

i i i i i i i i i i i i

the individual liable who is illegally holding the office. The writ protects
i i i i i i i i i i i i

the public from the exploitation of power by an individual presiding in a

i i i i i i i i i i i i i
i public office. Thus, in this case, the decision of the Governor was not
i i i i i i i i i i i i

i under scrutiny but, the person holding the office was examined, and
i i i i i i i i i i

i the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 cannot stand
i i i i i i i i i i

i as a bar from issuing a writ of quo warranto to that individual.

i i i i i i i i i i i i

Aftermath i

The Supreme Court decision declaring Jayalalitha’s appointment as

i i i i i i i

Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu being void and unconstitutional was

i i i i i i i i i i

based on her conviction by the Trial Court in the R. Sai Bharat v. J.

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Jayalalitha , after which she was replaced by O. Paneerselvam. Fathima

i i i i i i i i i i i

Beevi, who was the Governor of Tamil Nadu at that time had
i i i i i i i i i i i i

administered the oath of Jayalalitha, was asked to step down from her
i i i i i i i i i i i i

post by the Minister of Law after the judgment. She resigned and sent a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

report to the President of India justifying her decision, after which the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

then Governor of Andhra Pradesh Dr C. Rangarajan was appointed as

i i i i i i i i i i i

the acting Governor of Tamil Nadu. Her conviction was reversed by the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

High Court in 2001 on the ground of lack of evidence, and she again
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by winning the 2002 Tamil
i i i i i i i i i i i i

Nadu assembly by-election. In an appeal to the Supreme Court in 2003

i i i i i i i i i i i i

for the land acquisition case, it upheld the view of the High Court and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

acquitted Jayalalitha.
i i

Conclusion

The case of Jayalalitha is not a unique one. Many such Ministers have
i i i i i i i i i i i i

abused their position and the loopholes of the bare text of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i

Constitution. In these cases, the Court has intervened to provide

i i i i i i i i i i

justice to people and penalize those committing fraud against the

i i i i i i i i i i

Constitution. However, while doing so it is also important for the Court

i i i i i i i i i i i i

to keep in mind to give the proper rationale behind their judgment.

i i i i i i i i i i i i

The court in this case said that “any dangerous or absurd

i i i i i i i i i i i

interpretation has to be rejected out of hand”, however the Court in

i i i i i i i i i i i i
i this very case incorporated absurd interpretation while pronouncing
i i i i i i i

i the judgment. I respectfully states that Article 164(4) is redundant and

i i i i i i i i i i

i should be done away with to maintain consistency and avoid conflicts

i i i i i i i i i i

i that arise from time to time.

i i i i i