UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

ELECTION LAW

QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

FOR MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT &
STATE LEGISLATURES

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. Mahima Reetika Singh
B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)
Roll No- 158/19
Section- C
Semester- IX

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and the final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance
from many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of
my project. All that I have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would
not forget to thank them.
I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth to all those
who have helped me to put these ideas well above the level of simplicity and into something
concrete. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ms. Mahima who gave me an
opportunity to work on this project. I would like to thank her for providing invaluable
guidance and suggestions throughout the course of this project.
I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalising this
project within the limited time frame.

Reetika Singh

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: .................................................................................................................... 5
CRUCIAL DATE FOR DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS AND
DISQUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 6
QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT AND STATE
LEGISLATURES ...................................................................................................................... 6
CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................. 6
STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 9
DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT AND STATE
LEGISLATURES .................................................................................................................... 13
CONSTITUTIONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 13
STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 15
REMOVAL OR REDUCTION OF PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION ............................. 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 26
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 27

3|Page
 TABLE OF CASES

NAME OF CASE CITATION PAGE NO.

BR Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2001 SC 3435 6

Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi AIR 2001 SC 3689 7

VR Sutaria v. NP Bhanvadia AIR 1970 SC 765 7

Mayadhar Nayak v. SDO, Jaipur AIR 1982 Ori 221 8

Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India and Ors. [2006] 8 SCALE 257 10

Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhar AIR 2005 SC 800 11

Swami & Others

S Narayan Swami v G. Panneerselvam AIR 1972 SC 2284 13

Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar v Agadi Sanganna (1971) 3 SCC 870 14

Andanappa
Bhagwati Prashad Ghorewala Dixit v. Rajiv AIR 1986 SC 1534 15
Gandhi
K Prabhakaran v. P Jayarajan AIR 2002 SC 3393 15, 18

Debranjan Mukhopadhaya (Dr) v Manik Chandra AIR 1998 Cal 244 18

Mondal

Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 1590 20

Abdul Rahiman Khan v Sadasiva Tripathi AIR 1969 SC 302 21

Dewan Joynal Abedin v. Abdul Wazed (1988) Supp SCC 580 21

Sadaquat Hussain Khan v. Ram Sewak Singh 52 ELR 299 22

Pradyut Bordoloi v Swapan Ray AIR 2001 SC 296 22

Capt Chanan Singh Sidhu v. Election AIR 1992 P&H 183 24

Commission of India and Ors
Guinness Hote Paksha Rangaswamy v. Chief Writ Petition No 4357 of 1999 24
Election Commissioner

4|Page
INTRODUCTION:
Any person aspiring to be a member of Parliament or of a State Legislature in India, whether
by election or by nomination, must be qualified, and must not be disqualified, under the
Constitution or under any law for such membership. Qualifications are those positive
attributes of a person which make him eligible to occupy a particular position, post or public
office. Disqualifications, on the other hand, are those negative aspects of a person which
militate against his occupying such position, post or public office, despite his being qualified
therefor. Under the Constitution, „qualifications‟ and „disqualifications‟ for membership of
Parliament and State Legislatures are two different concepts and „lack of qualification‟ would
not be tantamount to „disqualification‟. Therefore, the Constitution prescribes certain
qualifications and also certain disqualifications separately. The qualifications for membership
of Parliament are prescribed in Article 84 whereas disqualifications for such membership are
laid down in Article 102. Likewise, Article 173 prescribes the qualifications for membership
of State Legislatures and it is Article 191 which lays down disqualifications therefor.
Another noteworthy point and an important distinguishing feature between qualifications and
disqualifications is that the qualifications must be fulfilled at the time of contesting an
election, or being nominated, as a member of Parliament or of a State Legislature, the
disqualifications have relevance both at the time of election or nomination and also thereafter
at all times for continuing as such member, if elected or nominated. Impliedly, even if an
elected or nominated member loses the qualification which he fulfilled at the time of his
election or nomination, his membership of the House concerned is not affected, but if he
becomes disqualified after his election or nomination, he will lose the membership of the
House, as he will be disqualified „for being‟ such member.
As qualifications and disqualifications are two different and distinct concepts, every
candidate is required to make a declaration in his nomination paper that he is qualified and
not also disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat which he intends to contest [Forms 2A to
2E (Forms of Nomination Papers), 1961 Rules]. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers,
the returning officer also has to be satisfied that the candidate is qualified and is not
disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat [Section 36(2)(a) of Representation of People
Act, 1951].

5|Page
CRUCIAL DATE FOR DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS AND
DISQUALIFICATIONS
Section 32 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides that any person may be
nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat in Parliament or in a State Legislature, if he
is qualified to be chosen to fill such seat. One view was that the candidate should be qualified
on the date on which his nomination paper is filed. The other view was that he should be
qualified on the date on which the returning officer scrutinises his nomination paper. This
ambiguity in law was removed in 1961 by amending section 36(2)(a) of the 1951 Act by the
Representation the People (Amendment) Act 1961 to expressly provide that the returning
officer shall determine whether a candidate is qualified or disqualified on the date fixed for
the scrutiny of nominations. As such, the existence of qualifications and non-existence of
disqualifications are to be enquired into by the returning officer with reference to the date of
scrutiny of nominations. For example, if a candidate is below the prescribed minimum age for
standing for election on the date on which he files his nomination paper, he shall nevertheless
be qualified for contesting the election, if he has attained the minimum qualifying age for the
purpose on the date of scrutiny of nominations.
Likewise, if a candidate is undergoing some disqualification on the date of filing his
nomination paper, like, the holding of office of profit under the government, he will still be
eligible to contest the election if, on the date of scrutiny of nominations, the period of his
disqualification has expired or such disqualification has ceased to be operative by removal or
otherwise. However, in BR Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu,1 it was held that if a candidate
stands disqualified on the date of the scrutiny of nominations, e.g., having been convicted for
a specified offence attracting disqualification, he shall remain disqualified for contesting that
election even if such disqualification is removed subsequently for any reason.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT AND

STATE LEGISLATURES
CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Some of the qualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures are laid down
by the Constitution whereas some more have been supplemented by parliamentary law.
Those which are fundamental and inalienable are prescribed by the Constitution itself. These
are:

1
AIR 2001 SC 3435

6|Page
(i) Citizenship of India
Article 84(a) and Article 173(a) peremptorily ordain that a person shall not be qualified to be
chosen to fill a seat in Parliament or in a State Legislature, unless he is a citizen of India.
Citizenship of India has been prescribed by the Constitution makers not only an essential
qualification for membership of Parliament or State Legislatures, but it has also been further
specifically laid down in the Constitution that a person shall be disqualified for such
membership if he is not a citizen of India [Article 102(1)(d) and Article 191(1)(d)].
Citizenship of India is governed by the provisions both of the Constitution and of the
statutory law. The Constitution makes detailed provisions in Part II thereof with respect to
those persons who were regarded as citizens of India at the commencement of the
Constitution, that is to say, on 26 January 1950. However, for those who are born on or after
26 January 1950, their citizenship is governed by the provisions of the Citizenship Act 1955.
In the case of Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi,2 the Supreme Court held that the validity
of a certificate granting citizenship by registration under section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship
Act 1955 can be questioned in an election petition and such question can be tried by the High
Court hearing the election petition if the question is whether the candidate is qualified for, or
disqualified from, contesting the election.

(ii) Oath or Affirmation Under the Constitution

Every candidate to be qualified to contest an election to Parliament or a State Legislature has
to make and subscribe either an oath in the name of God or a solemn affirmation in the form
prescribed for the purpose in the Constitution [Articles 84(a) and 173(a)].
In VR Sutaria v. NP Bhanvadia,3 the Supreme Court observed that the real purpose of the
oath is that the person concerned must give an undertaking to bear true faith and allegiance to
the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The oath or affirmation is to be made and subscribed by a candidate for election to Parliament
in Form IIIA in the Third Schedule to the Constitution and for election to a State Legislature
in Form VIIA in that schedule.
The requisite oath or affirmation under the Constitution is to be made and subscribed by the
candidates before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission [Articles
84(a) and 173(a)]. Principally, the oath or affirmation may be made and subscribed before the
returning officer or any of the assistant returning officers of the constituency from which the

2
AIR 2001 SC 3689
3
AIR 1970 SC 765

7|Page
candidate is seeking election. In addition, all stipendiary magistrates of the first class, district
judges and persons belonging to the judicial service of a state are also so authorised.
The requisite oath or affirmation is to be made and subscribed by the candidate at any time
after he has filed his nomination paper with the returning officer but before the date fixed for
the scrutiny of nomination papers.
The Election Commission has instructed that the mere signing on the paper on which the
form of oath or affirmation is written is not sufficient. The authorised person before whom
the oath or affirmation is made and subscribed should ask the candidate to read it aloud and
then to sign and give the date on the paper on which it is written. If the candidate is illiterate
or unable to read the form, the authorised person should read out the oath or affirmation, and
ask the candidate to repeat the same and thereafter take his thumb impression on the form.
The authorised person should endorse on the form that the oath or affirmation has been made
and subscribed by the candidate on that date and hour, and hand over the original to the
candidate, after keeping a copy thereof for his record, so as to enable the candidate to present
the original form to the returning officer.

(iii) Age Qualification

The Constitution has laid down that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat
in the Council of States or in the Legislative Council of a State having such Council unless he
is of 30 years of age [Articles 84(b) and 173(b)].
To be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House of the People or in a State Legislative
Assembly, the candidate must not be less than 25 years of age [Articles 84(b) and 173(b)].
The above minimum qualifying ages for elections to upper and lower Houses of Parliament
and State Legislatures were fixed by the Constitution makers, when they had prescribed the
minimum qualifying age for voting at elections to lower houses as 21 years. The minimum
qualifying age for voting has now been lowered from 21 to 18 years by the Constitution
(Sixty-First Amendment) Act 1988.
Every candidate must indicate his age in the column meant for the purpose in the nomination
paper. Failure to do so will be a defect of substantial character and the nomination paper shall
be liable to be rejected on this ground.
In Mayadhar Nayak v. SDO, Jaipur,4 it was observed that normally the age of a candidate as
shown in the electoral roll may be accepted as his correct age by the returning officer. But
such entry in the electoral roll or in the elector‟s identity card is not conclusive, particularly

4
AIR 1982 Ori 221

8|Page
where a doubt or objection is raised that the candidate is below the minimum qualifying age.
In such a case, the burden of proof will lie initially on the objector to prove that the candidate
is below age, and it will shift on the candidate if some prima facie evidence is led by the
objector. It will then be his duty to prove that he is not underage as his date of birth is within
his special knowledge and the failure on his part to adduce satisfactory evidence may go
against him in view of the provisions of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS
In addition to the qualifications which the Constitution has itself prescribed as fundamental
qualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures, the Constitution has
empowered Parliament to lay down such other qualifications for membership of these houses
as it considers and deems appropriate from time to time in the interests of smooth and
efficient functioning of these houses, to give true meaning and effect to the other provisions
of the Constitution and to keep pace with the changing times in a dynamic and vibrant
democracy. Parliament can prescribe such additional qualifications not only for its own
membership but also for the membership of State Legislatures [Articles 84(c) and 173(c)].
In exercise of the above power, the only additional qualifications laid down by Parliament in
this behalf are contained in Chapters I and II of Part II of the Representation of People Act,
1951 (Sections 3-6). In all these sections, the basic qualification prescribed by Parliament is
that the candidate should be a registered elector.
Meaning of Elector
“Elector” is defined in section 2(1)(e) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to mean in
relation to a constituency, a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of the
constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications
mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
An entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive
evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency,
unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950. [Section 36(7) of the Representation of People Act,
1951].
Qualification for Election to the Council of States
The Council of States consists of representatives of the States and Union Territories [Article
80 of the Constitution]. Therefore, Parliament prescribed in section 3 of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative of any

9|Page
State or Union Territory in the Council of States, unless he is an elector for a parliamentary
constituency in India.
In view of the amendment to section 3 of the 1951 Act in 2003, it is no longer necessary that
a candidate for election to the Council of States should be an elector registered in the state or
union territory from which he is contesting election. But he must be a registered elector in
some parliamentary constituency in the country.
In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India and Ors.,5 the aforesaid amendment to section 3 of the
1951 Act was challenged before the Supreme Court by Kuldip Nayar, a former member of
the Council of States, questioning its constitutional validity on the ground that the deletion of
requirement of domicile in the state concerned for getting elected to the Council of States was
violative of principle of federalism and it affected the status, position, role and character of
the Council of States in the constitutional scheme. The apex court observed that the
Constitution has no requirement that a person chosen to represent a state in the Council of
States must necessarily be a voter in that state itself. By the amended provision, the field of
consideration before the State Legislative Assembly in the matter of election of the State‟s
representative in the Council of States has been enlarged, and if the members of the assembly
decide to elect a person who is not ordinarily a resident of the state, they would do so with the
full knowledge of all circumstances and it would be their decision as to who should be the
representative of their state.

Qualifications for Election to the House of the People

The House of the People, as its name implies, is the House consisting of representatives of
people of the country. Therefore, Parliament considered that the people across the country
should not be unduly restricted in the matter of choice of their representatives, unless certain
special considerations require otherwise in the interests of the people of any state or any area.
Accordingly, a candidate for election to the House of the People from any parliamentary
constituency in India (except the parliamentary constituencies of Sikkim and Lakshadweep
and in the autonomous districts of Assam) may be an elector in any parliamentary
constituency in any part of the country [Section 4(d) of the Representation of People Act,
1951].
In the case of the Sikkim parliamentary constituency, the candidate should be an elector of
that constituency [Section 4(ccc)].

5
[2006] 8 SCALE 257

10 | P a g e
A candidate contesting election from the Lakshadweep parliamentary constituency should
also be an elector from the same constituency and, as the seat in that constituency is reserved
for the scheduled tribes in that union territory, the candidate must also belong to any of those
scheduled tribes [Section 4(cc)].
In the case of the seats reserved for the scheduled tribes in the autonomous districts of
Assam, the candidate must belong to any of those scheduled tribes and must also be an
elector in one of the parliamentary constituencies in those districts [Section 4(c)].
If a candidate is contesting election in any state or union territory (except autonomous
districts of Assam, Sikkim and Lakshadweep mentioned above) from a parliamentary
constituency in which the seat is reserved for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, he
must belong to any of the scheduled castes or, as the case may be, the scheduled tribes,
whether of that state or of any other state, and should be registered as an elector in a
parliamentary constituency in any part of India [Sections 4(a) and 4(b)].
A significant point worth noticing here is that in the case of the constituencies, whether
parliamentary or assembly, reserved for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the
contest is limited to the candidates belonging to these castes or tribes, as the case may be. But
in the case of general constituencies, there is no such limitation and even the members of the
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes are free to be contestants from those general
constituencies (Section 55 of the Representation of People Act, 1951).
In Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhar Swami & Others,6 the Supreme Court has
held that a non-tribal who marries a tribal could not claim to contest a seat reserved for
tribals. The apex court has observed that Articles 330 and 332 speak of reservation of seats
for scheduled tribes in legislatures and the object is clearly to give representation in
legislatures to scheduled tribe candidates considered to be deserving of such special
protection. The Supreme Court has further observed that the principle relating to reservation
under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in appointment or posts under the state as laid by that court
should be extended to the constitutional reservation of seats for scheduled tribes in the House
of the People and in the State Legislative assemblies. The said reservations are constitutional
reservations intended to benefit the really underprivileged and not to those who come to the
class by marriage. The Supreme Court clarified that whether it be a reservation under Article
15(4) or 16(4) or 330 or 332, the said reservation would benefit only those who belong to a
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and not those who claim to acquire the status by marriage.

6
AIR 2005 SC 800

11 | P a g e
Qualifications for Election to a State Legislative Assembly
In the case of an election to a State Legislative Assembly from an assembly constituency, a
person shall not be qualified to be chosen, unless:
(i) In the case of a seat reserved for the scheduled castes or for the scheduled tribes of that
state (other than the autonomous districts of Assam), he is a member of any of those castes or
tribes, as the case may be, and is an elector for any assembly constituency in the state
[Section 5(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951);
(ii) In the case of a seat reserved for an autonomous district of Assam in the Legislative
Assembly of that State, he is a member of a scheduled tribe of any of the autonomous
districts of that State and is an elector for the assembly constituency in which such seat or any
other seat is reserved for that district [Section 5(b)]
(iii) In the case of any other seat in any state, he is an elector for any assembly constituency
in that state [Section 5(c)].

Qualifications for Election to the Sikkim Legislative Assembly

In the Legislative Assembly for the State of Sikkim, there is special reservation for the
Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin and for the sanghas belonging to the recognized
monasteries in the state. Therefore, special qualifications have been laid down for contesting
elections to that State Legislative Assembly.
In the case of a seat reserved for the Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin, the candidate should
be a person either of Bhutia or Lepcha origin should be an elector in any assembly
constituency in the state (other than the constituency reserved for the sanghas) [Section
5A(2)(a) of the 1951 Act]
In the case of seat reserved for the sanghas, the candidate should be elector of the sanghas
constituency [Section 5A(2)(c)]. This constituency extends to the whole of the State of
Sikkim and the electors of the constituency are the sanghas belonging to monasteries,
recognised for the purpose of elections held in Sikkim in April 1974 under the regime of the
then Chogyal before Sikkim became part of the Indian union in 1976 [Section 25A of the
1950].
In the case of election from any other constituency, the candidate should be an elector in an
assembly constituency in the state [Section 5A(2)(d) of the 1951 Act]. But if the seat in that
constituency is reserved for the scheduled castes of the state, he must also belong to any of
those castes in the state [Section 5A(2)(b)].

12 | P a g e
Qualification for Election to State Legislative Council
The only qualification for election to a State Legislative Council as laid down by Parliament
is that the candidate should be an elector in any assembly constituency in the state [Section
6(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951]
It may be noted that the candidate should be an elector in any assembly constituency and not
in a council constituency. It is also not necessary that a candidate for an election from a
graduates‟ or a teachers‟ constituency should possess the same qualifications as are
prescribed under the Constitution for enrolment as an elector in those constituencies. In other
words, legally speaking, even an illiterate person may stand as a candidate for an election
from a graduates‟ or a teachers‟ constituency. The Supreme Court held in S Narayan Swami
v G. Panneerselvam,7 that the Constitution makers never wanted to make it obligatory that
only graduates should represent graduates and, therefore, the omission to prescribe the
qualification that a candidate from a graduates‟ constituency should also be a graduate is
deliberate.

DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP OF PARLIAMENT AND

STATE LEGISLATURES
CONSTITUTIONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS
Like qualifications for membership of Parliament and state legislatures, certain fundamental
disqualifications, which militate against a person entering the sacred portals of those august
Houses, have also been laid down by the Constitution itself.
(i) Office of Profit Under the Government
A person shall be disqualified both for being chosen as, and also for being, i.e., continuing as,
a member of either House of Parliament or of the any Legislative Assembly or Legislative
Council of a State, if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the
government of any state.
However, Parliament, in the case of members of Parliament, and the Legislature of a State, in
the case of its own members, may by law declare any office, the holder of which shall not be
so disqualified on the ground that he is holding an office of profit under the government
[Article 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) of the Constitution]. A minister either for the Union or for a
state is not deemed to be holding an office of profit under the government for the purposes of
such disqualification [Explanations to Article 102(1)(a) and Article 191(1)(a)].

7
AIR 1972 SC 2284

13 | P a g e
The underlying principle and the real intention of the Constitution makers in incorporating
this salutary provision in the Constitution is to keep the legislature independent of the
executive. It was felt desirable that members of legislatures should not feel themselves
beholden to the executive government and lose their independence of thought and action in
the discharge of their public duties as true representatives of the people.
The tests for determining the question whether a particular office is an office under the
government or not, were more succinctly elucidated by the Supreme Court in Shivamurthy
Swami Inamdar v Agadi Sanganna Andanappa,8 as follows:
(a) Whether the government makes the appointment:
(b) Whether the government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder;
(c) Whether the government pays remuneration:
(d) What the functions of the holder are and does he perform them for government; and
(e) Does the government exercise any control over the performance of these functions.

(ii) Unsoundness of Mind

A person shall also be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of
Parliament or of a State Legislature, if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a
competent court [arts 102(1)(b) and 191(1)(b)). It is apparent from this provision that a mere
allegation that a person is of unsound mind is not sufficient to disqualify him for membership
of Parliament or of a State Legislature, but such person should stand so declared by a
competent court under the law relating to lunacy (Indian Lunacy Act 1912). Even a certificate
by a doctor or by a medical board that a person is of unsound mind will not by itself
disqualify that person, but what is needed is a declaration by a competent court to that effect.

(iii) Undischarged Insolvent

The Constitution has further laid down that an undischarged insolvent shall also be
disqualified for membership of Parliament and of State Legislatures [Articles 102(1)(c) and
191(1)(c) of the Constitution]. The disqualification would be attracted only when a person is
adjudged insolvent by the competent insolvency court.

(iv) Non-citizenship of India or Acknowledgement of Allegiance or Adherence to a

Foreign State
A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and also for being, a member of
Parliament or of a State Legislature if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired

8
(1971) 3 SCC 870

14 | P a g e
the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or
adherence to a foreign State [Articles 102(1)(d) and 191(1)(d) of the Constitution].
In Bhagwati Prashad Ghorewala Dixit v. Rajiv Gandhi,9 the Supreme Court has held that if
a question is raised in an election petition that certain person has acquired the citizenship of
any other country, the High Court trying the election petition will have no jurisdiction to
decide that question. Whatever may be the proceeding in which the question of loss of
citizenship of a person arises for consideration, the decision in that proceeding on the said
question should depend upon the decision of the authority constituted for determining the
said question under section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act 1955 and it is only the declaration by
such authority which, if produced, has to be given effect to.

STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATIONS
The Constitution provides that, apart from the disqualifications laid down by the Constitution
itself, Parliament may prescribe such other disqualifications as deemed necessary for
membership both of Parliament and State legislatures [Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)]. The
disqualifications prescribed by Parliament are contained in Chapter III of Part II of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 comprising of sections 7 to 11 thereof.
Disqualification is defined in section 7(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to mean
disqualification for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament
or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. Appropriate government is
defined in section 7(a) to mean in relation to any disqualification for membership of
Parliament, the Central Government, and in relation to any disqualification for membership
of a State Legislature, the government of the State concerned.
The statutory disqualifications are as follows:
(i) Disqualification on Conviction for Certain Offences (Section 8)
The Supreme Court has observed in K Prabhakaran v. P Jayarajan,10 that the purpose of
enacting disqualification under section 8 is to prevent criminalization of politics. Those who
break the law should not make the law. Generally speaking, the purpose sought to be
achieved by enacting disqualification on conviction for certain offences is to prevent persons
with criminal background from entering into politics and the House a powerful wing of
governance. Thus, section 8 seeks to promote freedom and fairness at elections, as also law
and order being maintained while the elections are being held.

9
AIR 1986 SC 1534
10
AIR 2002 SC 3393

15 | P a g e
Classification of Offences- Parliament has classified offences under section 8 into three
categories having regard to the nature and gravity of those offences and their impact on the
proper constitution of the legislatures.
I. The first category is of those offences where the mere conviction itself without reference to
any quantum of punishment therefor, attracts disqualification for a minimum period of six
years from the date of conviction. The offences falling in this category are listed out in
section 8(1) of the 1951 Act. Where, however, the convicted person is sentenced to
imprisonment for any period, he shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and shall
continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.
The first category of offences specified in section 8(1) which attract disqualification on mere
conviction as mentioned above are:
a) Section 153 A (offence of promoting enmity between different groups on ground of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery) or section 171F (offence of
undue influence or personation at an election) or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section
376 or section 376A or section 376B or section 376C or section 376D (offences relating to
rape) or section 498A (offence of cruelty towards a woman by husband or relative of a
husband) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 (offence of making statement
creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or offence relating to such
statement in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious
worship or religious ceremonies) of the Indian Penal Code;
(b) The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 which provides for punishment for the preaching
and practice of „untouchability‟ and for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom;
(c) Section 11 (offence of importing or exporting prohibited goods) of the Customs Act,
1962;
(d) Sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a member of an association declared unlawful, offence
relating to dealing with funds of an unlawful association or offence relating to contravention
of an order made in respect of a notified place) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967;
(e) The Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973;
(f) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(g) Section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts) or section 4 (offence of committing
disrupting activities) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987;

16 | P a g e
(h) Section 7 (offence of contravention of the provisions of sections 3 to 6) of the Religious
Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988
(i) Section 125 (offence of promoting enmity between classes in connection with the election)
or section 135 (offence of removal of ballot papers from polling stations) or section 135A
(offence of booth capturing) or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 136 (offence of
fraudulently defacing or fraudulently destroying any nomination paper) of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951;
(j) Section 6 (offence of conversion of a place of worship) of the Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act, 1991;
(k) Section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India) or
section 3 (offence of preventing singing of National Anthem) of the Prevention of Insults to
National Honour Act, 1971;
(l) The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act 1987;
(m) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
(n) The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002

II. In the second category fall those offences where the conviction should result in a sentence
of imprisonment for not less than six months to attract the disqualification. These offences
are specified in section 8(2) and the resultant disqualification runs during the period of
sentence of imprisonment and for a further period of six years from the release.
The second category of offences listed in section 8(2) where the conviction coupled with a
sentence of imprisonment for not less than six months invites disqualification are:
Contravention of:
(a) Any law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering;
(b) Any law relating to the adulteration of food or drugs;
(c) Any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

III. The third category mentioned in section 8(3) covers all other offences for which a person
is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years [other than any
offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 8]. Here also, the
disqualification is operative during the period of sentence of imprisonment and for a further
period of six years from his release.
The question of meaning to be assigned to the expression „sentenced to imprisonment for not
less than two years‟ occurring in section 8(3) of the 1951 Act came to be considered by

17 | P a g e
Supreme Court in K Prabhakaran v. P Jayarajan.11 The Supreme Court observed that in a
trial a person may be charged for several offences and, if held guilty, may be sentenced to
different terms of imprisonment for such different offences. Individually, the term of
imprisonment may be less than two years for each of the offences, but collectively or taken
together or added to each other the total term of imprisonment may exceed two years.
Whether the applicability of section 8(3) would be attracted to such a situation was the
question before the Supreme Court. In that case, the respondent had been sentenced to
various terms of imprisonment for different offences tried in a single trial and the sentences
of imprisonment were to run consecutively and the total period of such sentences of
imprisonment exceeded two years. The Supreme Court held that in the case of consecutive
sentences the aggregate period of imprisonment awarded as punishment for the several
offences and in the case of punishment consisting of several terms of imprisonment made to
run concurrently, the longest of the several terms of imprisonment would be relevant to be
taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding whether the sentence of imprisonment is
for less than two years or not.

Saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures-

The above provisions relating to disqualifications in sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) are subject to
an important exception in the matter of their application to sitting members of Parliament and
State Legislatures. It is provided in section 8(4) that if the person convicted of any of the
offences under section 8(1), 8(2) or 8(3) is a sitting member of Parliament or of the
Legislature of a State on the date of such conviction, the consequent disqualification shall not
take effect in his case until three months have elapsed from the date of conviction and, if
within that period of three months, an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect
of the conviction or the sentence, the disqualification shall not be attracted until that appeal or
application is disposed of by the court.
A view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Debranjan Mukhopadhaya (Dr) v Manik
Chandra Mondal,12that the operation of disqualification in relation to such a person shall
remain stayed until the disposal of the appeal or application for revision and he shall not be
disqualified to contest next election for constituting a new assembly on the dissolution of the
assembly of which he was the sitting member, if his appeal or application for revision is still
pending.

11
AIR 2002 SC 3393
12
AIR 1998 Cal 244

18 | P a g e
(ii) Disqualification on Ground of Commission of Corrupt Practices (Section 8A)
If a person commits a corrupt practice at an election, it can be called in question in an
election petition filed before the High Court of the state concerned in accordance with the
provisions of Article 329(b) r/w Part VI of the 1951 Act. If the High Court in the trial of the
election petition or the Supreme Court on appeal, finds a person guilty of commission of
corrupt practice, it names him so by an order under section 99 of the 1951 Act. Such guilty
person may invite disqualification for contesting elections in future to Parliament and State
Legislatures [section 8A(1) of the 1951 Act). The maximum period for which he can be so
disqualified is six years from the date the order of the court, finding him guilty takes effect
[proviso to section 8A(1)].
The person so found guilty of commission of corrupt practice under section 99 may not
necessarily be a candidate at the election. He can even be a third person. If a definite finding
has been recorded against a person of having committed corrupt practice in the judgment of
the High Court, even if there is no separate order naming him under section 99, he shall be
deemed to have been so named and will fall within the purview of section 8A.
But the disqualification under section 8A is no longer automatic. The question whether such a
person should be disqualified and, if so, for what period, is determined by the President.
Before giving his decision in the matter, the President is required to obtain the opinion of the
Election Commission and he is bound to act according to such opinion [section 8A(3)].
Prior to 1975, every person found guilty of corrupt practice by a High Court or the Supreme
Court, as the case may be, was automatically disqualified for a period of six years from the
date the order of the court took effect. But this provision relating to automatic disqualification
for a fixed period of six years was amended in 1975 by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act
1975, as it was felt that the period of disqualification should have a nexus to the nature and
gravity of the corrupt practice committed and should not be automatic and uniform in all
cases. The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms recommended in 1990 that the law
might be amended so as to restore the position as was prior to 1975.
Any person who stands disqualified under section 8A of the Act as it stood immediately
before the commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, may, if the period
of such disqualification has not expired, submit a petition to the President for the removal of
such disqualification for the unexpired portion of the said period [section 8A(2)].
The term „corrupt practice‟ means only the corrupt practices as defined in Section 123 of the
1951 Act and not any other irregularity or malpractice at an election.

19 | P a g e
In Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain,13 if the High Court finds in the trial of an election
petition that a person is guilty of a corrupt practice, the finding of the High Court may be
stayed either by the High Court itself, so as to allow the person concerned to move the
Supreme Court in appeal, or by the Supreme Court on appeal. Once a stay order is granted,
the finding of the High Court shall get eclipsed and the consequent action to the person
concerned under section 8A shall also be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or
the vacation of the stay order, whichever is earlier. Thus, in such a case, the period of
disqualification shall be reckoned from the date of the order of the appellate court and not
from the date of the order of the High Court finding the person concerned guilty of corrupt
practice.

(iii) Disqualification for Dismissal from Government Service for Corruption or

Disloyalty (Section 9)
If any person is holding an office or post under the Government of India or under the
government of any state and is dismissed from the service of the government for corruption
or for disloyalty to the state, he shall be disqualified for membership of Parliament or of any
State Legislature for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal [section 9(1), 1951
Act]. The words „corruption‟ and „disloyalty to the state‟ have not been defined in the 1951
Act, and these words will have to take their respective meanings from other relevant laws,
like the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the Indian Penal Code 1860.
If during the period of five years since dismissal, any dismissed government servant wishes
to contest an election, he has to produce a certificate from the Election Commission that he
has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state and such certificate by the
Election Commission shall be conclusive of the fact [section 9(2), 1951 Act]. Such certificate
has to be annexed to the nomination paper itself and in the absence of such certificate
accompanying a nomination paper, the candidate shall not be deemed to be duly nominated
and his nomination shall be liable to be rejected on this ground alone [Section 33(3) of 1951
Act].
Where the Election Commission is of the opinion that the person concerned has been
dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state, the Commission shall not issue any such
certificate without giving the said person an opportunity of being heard [proviso to section
9(2)]. But it is not necessary to hear a person where the Commission is satisfied on the basis
of the records produced that the dismissal was not for corruption or disloyalty.

13
AIR 1975 SC 1590

20 | P a g e
(iv) Disqualification for Contracts with Government (Section 9A)
A contract by a person with the government may also disqualify him for membership of
Parliament and of State Legislatures. The underlying intention here also is to ensure that there
is no conflict between public duty and private interests.
A person shall be disqualified by reason of contract with the government if:
(a) the contract has been entered into by him in the course of his trade or business;
(b) the contract is for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by,
the government;
(c) the contract is with the appropriate government; and
(d) the contract is still subsisting.
The first and the foremost question to be considered under section 9A is what meaning is to
be ascribed to the word „contract‟ in that section. Is it any contract or a contract which is
enforceable against the government? Contract to be enforceable against the government is to
be executed in the manner prescribed in Article 299 of the Constitution. Any such contract by
the Central Government has to be expressed in the name of the President and executed by
such person and in such manner as the President may direct or authorise. Similarly, all
contracts by a State Government are to be executed on behalf of the Governor of the State
concerned by the authorised state government officers.
In Abdul Rahiman Khan v Sadasiva Tripathi,14 the Supreme Court held that though for
breach of the terms of a contract not executed in the manner prescribed by Article 299 of the
Constitution, a suit for relief in a civil court would not lie, but on that account it could not be
said that a contract for execution of works undertaken by a person under such contract would
not operate as a disqualification if both the parties to the contract treated it as binding on
them.
A contract entered into by the mukhiya of a village panchayat on behalf of the panchayat with
the government for certain development programme was held to be not disqualifying the
mukhiya, as it was not executed in his personal capacity, but as the mukhiya of the village
panchayat.
In Dewan Joynal Abedin v. Abdul Wazed,15 the Supreme Court has held that the word
„works‟ has been used in the expression „execution of any works‟ in the sense of „projects‟,
„schemes‟, „plants‟ such as building works, irrigation works, defence works etc. It is used in

14
AIR 1969 SC 302
15
(1988) Supp SCC 580

21 | P a g e
the same sense as the word „works‟ is used in Entry 35 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution.
The word „government‟ means the government and any of its departments but not any
government company or corporation. In Sadaquat Hussain Khan v. Ram Sewak Singh,16 it
was held that a contract with the Bihar State Electricity Board was not considered to be a
contract with the government within the meaning of section 9A as the Board is a separate
statutory body.
A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, there subsists a contract between him and
the government. So, the disqualification under this section for entering into a contract with
the government continues so long as the contract continues to subsist and is thus co-terminus
with the termination of the contract. A contract is said to be in subsistence till its fully
discharged by the performance on both sides. But the Explanation to the said section 9A
makes an important exception to this general rule and provides that where a contract has been
fully performed by the person by whom it has been entered into with the appropriate
government, the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that the
government has not performed its part of the contract either wholly or in part.

(e) Disqualification for Holding Office under Government Company (Section 10)
It is provided by Parliament that if a person is holding the office of a: (i) managing agent; (ii)
manager; or (iii) secretary of any company or corporation (other than a cooperative society)
in the capital of which the appropriate government has not less than 25 percent shares, such
person shall also be disqualified (section 10 of the 1951 Act). It, however, deserves to be
noted that the disqualification shall be attracted only by the persons holding the above-
mentioned offices and not by the other employees of such government companies or
corporations. Further, all cooperative societies also fall outside the purview of this
disqualificatory provision. No definition of managing agent, manager or secretary has been
been provided in the 1951 Act and these offices may derive their meanings from the
Companies Act, 2013.
The Supreme Court held in Pradyut Bordoloi v Swapan Ray,17 that the post of clerk in the
Coal India Ltd, a government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies
Act, is not an office of profit under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The exercising of
some supervisory function, occasionally in the absence of his senior officer on account of

16
52 ELR 299
17
AIR 2001 SC 296

22 | P a g e
leave or absence, over his subordinates would not also make him a manager of the company
so as to disqualify him under section 10 of the 1951 Act.
A person holding any of the above-mentioned offices in a company or corporation in which
the Central Government has at least 25 percent shares, shall be disqualified for membership
of Parliament only, and not for the membership of any State Legislature. Likewise, a person
holding the above office in a company or corporation in which a State Government holds at
least 25 percent share shall be disqualified for membership of the legislature of that state
alone and not of any other State Legislature or Parliament.

(vi) Disqualification for Failure to Lodge Account of Election Expenses (Section 10A)
Every candidate at an election to the House of the People or to a State Legislative Assembly
has to keep and maintain a separate account of his election expenses incurred or authorised
by him or by his election agent between the date which he has been nominated as such
candidate and the date of declaration of result of the election, both dates inclusive [section
77(1) of the 1951 Act]. The law further requires that every contesting candidate shall lodge a
true copy of the account of his election expenses with the district election officer of district in
which his constituency falls within a period of 30 days from date of declaration of result of
the election (section 78).
Rule 86 of the 1961 Rules prescribes that the account should be maintained from day to day
and should show the particulars mentioned in that rule. In order to ensure that the candidates
maintain their accounts in the manner required, the Election Commission has now devised a
register in which such account is to be maintained by every candidate. It is supplied by the
returning officer to each candidate as soon as he files his nomination paper. After the
election, this very register is now required to be submitted by the candidate to the district
election officer, along with some abstract statements showing the details of his expenditure
under various heads and sub-heads.
If a candidate fails to lodge the account of his election expenses within the time and in the
manner required, he shall be disqualified by the Election Commission, if he has no good
reason or justification for his failure (section 10A of the 1951 Act). Such disqualification
shall be operative for a period of three years from the date of order of the Election
Commission so disqualifying him. The order of the Election Commission is required to be
published in the Official Gazette, but the disqualification is attracted from the date on which
the Election Commission issues the order though it may have been published in the Official
Gazette at a later date.

23 | P a g e
In Capt Chanan Singh Sidhu v. Election Commission of India and Ors,18 the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana has observed that the Election Commission need not state the reasons for
disqualifying a person under section 10A in the disqualification order as such reasons are
inbuilt in that section itself.
It may be noted that at present a candidate is not disqualified by the Election Commission for
his mere failure to submit his account of election expenses, but shall be disqualified if he has
no good reason or justification for such failure. Therefore, the rules prescribe that every
defaulting candidate must be given a notice by the Election Commission to show cause why
he should not be disqualified under section 10A for the above failure [Rule 89(5) of the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961]. Such candidate may thereupon submit his account of
election expenses to the district election officer within 20 days of the receipt of the notice
from the Election Commission and also a representation explaining the reason for his earlier
failure. If the candidate again fails to respond to the notice and does not submit his account of
election expenses within the said period of 20 days, the Election Commission disqualifies
him. The Election Commission may also disqualify him, if he fails to furnish a good reason
or justification for his earlier failure, though he may have submitted his account of election
expenses in response to the Commission‟s notice. But the Commission is normally reluctant
to disqualify a person who submits his account in response to the Commission‟s show cause
notice.
There is no time limit fixed under the law within which the Election Commission may take a
decision with regard to the disqualification of a candidate for his failure to submit his account
of election expenses. However, the Karnataka High Court observed on 26 July 1999 in
Guinness Hote Paksha Rangaswamy v. Chief Election Commissioner,19 that the
Commission should dispose of such cases with reasonable promptitude and within a
reasonable time. The high court, in this case, quashed the order of the Election Commission
whereby it had disqualified the petitioner on 7 December 1998 for his failure to lodge the
account of his election expenses in connection with the general election to the Karnataka
Legislative Assembly held in 1994, holding that there was unreasonable delay in the disposal
of the case of the petitioner by the Election Commission. The High Court observed that when
a power is conferred on an authority to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a
reasonable manner and exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its
exercise within a reasonable time.

18
AIR 1992 P&H 183
19
Writ Petition No 4357 of 1999

24 | P a g e
REMOVAL OR REDUCTION OF PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION
Parliament has prescribed various disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State
Legislatures in sections 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10 and 10A of the 1951 Act and has also prescribed the
periods for which such disqualifications will run or subsist under those provisions. But
Parliament has also simultaneously empowered the Election Commission under section 11 of
the 1951 Act to remove any such disqualification or reduce the period of such
disqualification, except the disqualification under section 8A for commission of corrupt
practices. Power to remove disqualification under section 8A has not been conferred on the
Election Commission because the very imposition of disqualification under that section and
the period of such disqualification is determined by the President on the opinion of the
Commission itself.
The Election Commission can exercise the above power where it considers that the
disqualification imposed upon or incurred by any person is either not warranted, or is too
excessive in the facts and circumstances of that case, and that it should either be removed
altogether or its period may be reduced. The Election Commission has to record its reasons
for removing or reducing the period of any disqualification, so that it does not act arbitrarily
and without good cause or justification.
Normally, the Election Commission does not act suo moto in such cases, and invokes its
extraordinary jurisdiction only where it is moved by the person concerned providing full
justification in this behalf. The person concerned is also given normally an opportunity of
being heard by the Commission before it takes any decision in the matter, though it is not a
prescribed requirement under section 11.
The majority of the cases where the Election Commission has exercised its power to remove
or reduce the period of disqualification of any person are those where it itself disqualified
certain candidates under section 10A for their failure to lodge their accounts of election
expenses. Only rarely has it used its power in the case of other disqualifications. In one such
rare case, the Election Commission removed the disqualification of a person convicted of
murder and further removed his disqualification with retrospective effect which had the effect
of saving his election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.

25 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION
Any person aspiring to be a member of Parliament or of a State Legislature in India, whether
by election or by nomination, must be qualified, and must not be disqualified, under the
Constitution or under any law for such membership. The Constitution prescribes certain
qualifications and also certain disqualifications separately. The qualifications for membership
of Parliament are prescribed in Article 84 whereas disqualifications for such membership are
laid down in Article 102. Likewise, Article 173 prescribes the qualifications for membership
of State Legislatures and it is Article 191 which lays down disqualifications therefor.
Parliament can prescribe such additional qualifications not only for its own membership but
also for the membership of State Legislatures. In exercise of the above power, the only
additional qualifications laid down by Parliament in this behalf are contained in Sections 3-6
of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Parliament has prescribed various disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State
Legislatures in sections 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10 and 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951
and has also prescribed the periods for which such disqualifications will run or subsist under
those provisions. But Parliament has also simultaneously empowered the Election
Commission under section 11 of the 1951 Act to remove any such disqualification or reduce
the period of such disqualification, except the disqualification under section 8A for
commission of corrupt practices. Power to remove disqualification under section 8A has not
been conferred on the Election Commission because the very imposition of disqualification
under that section and the period of such disqualification is determined by the President on
the opinion of the Commission itself.

26 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Rama Devi, VS and SK Mendiratta, How India Votes Election Laws, Practice and
Procedure, Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana, 2nd edition, 2018
 Qualification and Disqualification available at https://www.ceorajasthan.nic.in (last visited
on November 14, 2023)
 Law relating to Elections available at http://student.manupatra.com (last visited on
November 14, 2023)
 The Constitution of India available at https://www.indiacode.nic.in (last visited on
November 14, 2023)
 The Representation of the People Act, 1951 available at https://www.indiacode.nic.in (last
visited on November 14, 2023)

27 | P a g e