Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. If question No. 1 is answered in affirmative, whether there is any person disqualified for being a Member of either house of Parliament and liable to be so declared by the Court?"

As a corollary, is there a requirement as indicated in Question No. 1 for membership of State Legislature in terms of Articles 173 and 188 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the Constitution).

2. In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that Articles 84 and 173 of the Constitution have to be read in a manner that persons who are unable to comprehend their requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation in terms of Articles 84, 99, 173 and 188 of the Constitution are ineligible to become Members of Parliament and Legislature of a State. To put it differently, according to the petitioner, the words "makes and subscribes" under Articles 84(a) and 173(a) not only imply that a person qualified to be a candidate to fill a seat in Parliament should be a citizen of India and not less than 25 years of age in the case of being elected to the House of People and not less than 30 years of age on being elected as member of Council of States but also should have sufficient knowledge of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, in order to make the requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation to the Constitution meaningful and purposeful. It is submitted by the petitioner that the roles of Legislature are very vital for proper governance of the country in formulating policy decisions and making of laws on varied subjects. A person who is not literate and does not have basic knowledge of the Constitution cannot be said to have fulfillled the requirement of making and subscribing to the Constitution. Thus, according to the petitioner, use of the expression" make and subscribe" under Articles 84(a) and 173(a) also makes the legislative intent clear that adequate knowledge of law and spirit of the Constitution is inherent in the provisions. Since he is unaware of what is being legislated, the law making power delegated to him by the Constitution really results in mindless participation and more so when enactment of a statute comes up for consideration of the law making bodies. The Constitution makers were conscious of this position as their deliberations clearly reflect. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents the propositions advanced by the petitioner are incapable of being worked out and the interpretation put to Articles 84(a) and 173(a) of the Constitution would result in absurd results.

Though Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad who were the Law Minister and the President of the Constituent Assembly, highlighted the desirability of having high qualifications, the same was not found acceptable. Only by Clause (c) of Article 84, Parliament was authorised to make any law prescribing any qualification in that behalf. In the line of Article 68-A, Article 152 was also added in the draft Constitution. Article 152 of the draft Constitution was incorporated as Article 173 of the Constitution. The said provision was similar to Article 68A of the draft Constitution. Prof. K. T. Shah moved an application for amendment of this Article by which word 'literacy' was sought to be added for a person to be elected as a member of Legislature. The proposed amendment was as under :--

By said Amendment following changes were introduced :

(a) making obligatory on the nominated candidate to make oath or affirmation same as elected member.

(b) the oath or affirmation should also be in upholding of sovereignty and integrity of India.

(c) Correspondingly all the forms of Third Schedule were amended.

(d) In addition, the same wording "sovereignty and integrity of India" was introduced in Article 19(2)(3) of the Constitution of India.

7. At the outset it is necessary to note the purpose for which requirements of taking oath have been laid out. The purpose of Article 173(a) is to see that any person who wants to be a member of a legislature must bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and he undertakes to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and to ensure this he must make oath or affirmation. (See Khaji Khanavar Khadirkhan Hussain Khan v. Siddavan Balli Nijalinappa ). The essential requirement of Article 173 read with Form VII-A is that person taking the oath or making the affirmation would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India (See : Virjiram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhavadia ). The object of introducing the amendment in Clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution was to provide that not only before taking his ,seat shall a member of the Legislature take the oath prescribed by the Third Schedule as required by Article 188 of the Constitution, but also that even before standing for election, a candidate must take the same oath. This is to ensure that only a person having allegiance to India shall be eligible for membership of the Legislature.

(c) In the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State."

18. An important and very noticeable difference between qualifications prescribed by Parliament for the membership of a Legislative Assembly by Section 5 of the R. P. Act, 1951 and those for the membership of a Legislative Council by Section 6 of that Act is that, so far as a member of the Legislative Assembly is concerned, he or she has to be an Elector in the constituency from which he or she stands, but a member of a Legislative Council in a State is not similarly required to be a member of the electorate. All that Parliament says, in Section 6 of the R. P. Act, 1951 are to be found laid down anywhere. Article 173 has been quoted above.