Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. Arts. 191, 192 and 193 constitute a set of provisions intended to ensure that a person who is either is qualified to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council, does not sit as a Member thereof and does not function as a representative of the voters. Both Arts. 192 and 193 do not however provide for any particular mode or manner in which the provisions of these Articles can be invoked. In so far as the initiation of proceedings to give effect to the provisions of Art. 193 is concerned, it seems to stand on the same footing as Art. 192 which also does not make any reference as to who can initiate a proceeding to give effect to the provisions of Art. 192 read with Art. 191, though Art. 192 specifies the Governor as the authority to decide whether a Member of the House of Legislature has become subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in Art. 191(1). The Supreme Court in Brundaban v. Election Commission, has taken the view that any citizen can make a complaint to the Governor alleging that the Member of the Legislative Assembly has incurred one of the disqualifications mentioned in Art. 191(1) and should therefore vacate his seat. Similarly, in our view, any citizen can make a complaint that the Member of the Legislative Assembly does not possess the qualifications contemplated by the Constitution and therefore a declaration to that effect should be given for the purposes of Art. 193 of the Constitution. A Member of the Legislative Assembly is a public functionary and even if a rival candidate who has been defeated at the election brings to the notice of this Court that such a public functionary does not have the basic qualifications which are required under the Constitution to enable him to occupy the office of a public functionary and if on facts found, this grievance is found to be correct, the Court would be failing in its duty in declining to give effect to the provisions of Art. 193 merely on the ground that a person who has failed at the election has brought the material facts to the notice of this Court and that he had not chosen to avail of the statuto6 remedy of challenging the election.