An office of profit under the State Government includes an office, the existence of which is dependent on the exercise of Governmental authority and for a public purpose, a position of trust or authority conferred by an act of governmental power; a right to exercise a public function or employment and receive the emoluments thereto belonging.

Headnote:
Election - Disqualification - Office of profit - Insurance Medical Practitioner - Whether holds an office of profit under the State Government - Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner, was elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay. The respondent challenged the election on the ground that the appellant held an office of profit under the State of Bombay, by reason of his being an Insurance Medical Practitioner and that he was, therefore, disqualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution. The Election Tribunal accepted the contentions of the respondent and accordingly passed an order declaring the election of the appellant to be void. The Election Tribunal also granted a declaration declaring the respondent duly elected to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay from the Mazagaon Constituency in Greater Bombay. Against these orders passed by the Election Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant held an office of profit under the State Government and was, therefore, disqualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution. However, the court also held that the respondent did not receive a majority of valid votes given at the election and, therefore, could not be declared a duly elected candidate.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant held an office of profit under the State Government? 2. Whether the respondent received a majority of valid votes given at the election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant held an office of profit under the State Government on the following grounds: * The appellant was appointed as an Insurance Medical Practitioner under the rules framed under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. * The Corporation, which was responsible for administering the scheme, had to work under the control and supervision of the Central Government. * The State Government was primarily responsible for providing medical benefits to insured persons and their families. * The arrangements with the Medical Practitioners for providing medical treatment for insured persons at their clinics were to be made by the State Government and not by the Corporation. * The appellant was subject to disciplinary action and removal by the State Government. * The appellant's remuneration was paid by the State Government. 2. The court held that the respondent did not receive a majority of valid votes given at the election on the following grounds: * The appellant was a validly nominated candidate. * The votes given to the appellant could not be deemed to have been thrown away or regarded as invalid votes. * The respondent did not receive a majority of valid votes.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The order passed by the Tribunal declaring the election of the appellant to be void was confirmed, but the other order passed by the Tribunal declaring the respondent to be a duly elected member of the State Legislative Assembly was set aside.

Judgment -

1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Surat, by which the election of the appellant as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay from the Mazagaon constituency, Greater Bombay, has been set aside, The election was held on 11-3-1957. There were two candidates contesting at this election; the appellant and the respondent. We have been informed at the Bar that four candidates had been duly nominated, but that after the nomination papers of the appellant and the respondent were held to be in order, the other candidates withdrew from the election. The appellant polled 22,914 votes, while the respondent obtained 14,885 votes. The appellant was, therefore, declared duly elected. The respondent thereafter submitted a petition challenging the election of the appellant, on the ground that the appellant, who is an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner, held an office of profit under the State of Bombay, by reason of his being an Insurance Medical Practitioner and that he was, therefore, disqualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution. He, therefore, asked for two reliefs. He prayed that the election of the appellant should be declared void. The other relief sought by him was for a declaration that he was duly elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly in place of the appellant. The appellant denied that he held any office of profit under the State, of Bombay or that he was disqualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution. The Election Tribunal accepted the contentions of the respondent and accordingly passed an order declaring the election of the appellant to be void. The Election Tribunal also granted a declaration declaring the respondent duly elected to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay from the Mazagaon Constituency in Greater Bombay. Against these orders passed by the Election Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Paragraph (1) of Article 191 of the Constitution states that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State,

(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any state specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder.

The object of this provision is to secure independence of the members of the Legislature and to ensure that the Legislature docs not contain persons, who have received favours or benefits from the executive and who, consequently, being under an obligation to the executive, might be amenable to its influence. Putting it differently, the provision appears to have been made in order to eliminate or reduce the risk of conflict between duty and self-interest amongst the members of the Legislature. This object must always be borne in mind in interpreting Article 191.

3. Mr. Chari has suggested that this provision should be construed strictly, as a disqualification affects the right of franchise, which includes the right to stand for an election and be voted fir. The provision has been inserted in the Constitution with a deliberate purpose and in cases of doubt or where two interpretations are possible we are of the opinion that that interpretation should be preferred, which will further and effectually carry out the object of the makers of the Constitution.

4. The expression "office of profit" is not defined in the Constitution or in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This is evidently because it is not easy to frame a definition, which will cover all the different kinds of posts, which now exist under Government or those which might hereafter be created. We have also not been able to find any case, in which an attempt has been made to give an exhaustive meaning of this expression. It is, however, clear that before a person can be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document