Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred to this Court under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act from the order of the Election Tribunal, Nagapattinam, in Election Petition No. 178 of 1957 before it.

The election in question was to the Mayuram constituency of the Madras State Assembly, and two members-one to the general seat and one reserved for a member of the scheduled caste-had to be elected. The election was held on 11th March, 1957. At this election, G. Narayanaswami Naidu and P. Jayaraj who were the respondents in the election petition were respectively elected to the general and reserved seats. The question at issue in the petition related to the propriety of the rejection of the nomination of C. Krishnamurthi, the election petitioner. First February, 1957, was the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nominations. On that date one of the candidates K. Krishnamurthi-not a party to these proceedings -objected to the nomination of the petitioner G. Krishnamurthi on the ground that the latter held “an office of profit under the Government of India” in that he was a salaried, employee-a Junior Inspector under-the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and was therefore disqualified to stand for election under Article 191 (1) of the Constitution. The Article runs:

“ 191 (1).-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;

......................................

(a) if he is so diqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.”

This objection was upheld and the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the other candidates went to the poll and Narayanaswami Naidu and Jayaraj were declared duly elected. C. Krishnamurthi filed the election petition for declaring the election of Narayanaswami Naidu and Jayaraj to be void on the ground that his own nomination had been improperly rejected. Section 100 (1) of the Representation of the People Act enacts:

“ (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the Tribunal is of opinion.

......................................

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected.... shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.”

If therefore C. Krishnamurthi was able to establish that the rejection of his nomination was improper, the Tribunal had to set aside the election. This petition was referred to the District and Sessions Judge of East Tanjore who was appointed as the Election Tribunal.

Before the learned Judge two points were urged: (1) -that C. Krishnamurthi was not disqualified to stand because the “office of profit” that he held was not under the Government of India but under the Life Insurance Corporation — a statutory Corporation created by the Life Insurance Corporation Act (XXXI of 1956). The Tribunal upheld this contention holding that the office of profit which C. Kris-namurthi held did not fall within Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution. (2) The other point that was considered by the Tribunal related to C. Krishnamurthi being disqualified under Article 191 (1) (e). Under Regulations framed by the Corporation by virtue of the powers vested in that behalf by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the employees of the Corporation were prohibited from standing for election to the Legislatures, Union and State. It was urged before the Tribunal that these regulations, which bound Krishnamurthi, were a disqualification “ under any law made by Parliament” within Article 191 (1) (e). The Tribunal negatived this contention also. This resulted in the Tribunal holding that C. Krishnamurthi was under no disqualification to stand for election, and that his nomination

Click Here to Read the rest of this document