Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The main legislative intent is to maintain independence and prevent conflicts of interest, especially by restricting reappointment to offices of profit after serving as Ombudsman ["K. K. DENESAN (RTD. JUDGE) VS SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - Kerala"], ["I SCRIBES INDIA PVT. LTD. vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["N.Raja vs Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing - Madras"]- ["K. K. DENESAN (RTD. JUDGE) VS SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - Kerala"]- ["STATE OF KERALA vs T V BALAN Advocate - GILBERT GEORGE, GILBERT GEORGE,M K DAMODARAN (SR ),O V MANIPRASAD - Kerala"]- ["I SCRIBES INDIA PVT. LTD. vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Kerala"]- ["KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. vs THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN - Kerala"]- ["State of Kerala VS Prof. T. V Balan Ex-Member, Ombudsman, Priyendu - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 46"]
In the realm of Indian constitutional law, the concept of an 'office of profit' often sparks debates, especially when it comes to eligibility for legislative positions. A key question arises: whether the post of Ombudsman falls under the category of office of profit under the government? This is particularly relevant under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, where the Ombudsman's role involves oversight of local governance disputes.
This blog post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. While this analysis provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
The term 'office of profit' is enshrined in Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, disqualifying holders from contesting elections to prevent conflicts of interest and undue government influence. Courts have outlined clear criteria to determine this:
As noted in judicial precedents, the power of the Government to appoint a person to an office of profit or to continue him in that office or revoke his appointment at their discretion and payment from out of Government revenues are important factors Moosa, Manager, Amlp School VS State Of Kerala - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 997. Mere association with a government-established body does not suffice unless control is evident Pradyut Bordoloi VS Swapan Roy - 2000 8 Supreme 506Abdul Shakur VS Rikhab Chand - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 85.
Established to resolve disputes in panchayat administration, the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial body. Its main legal finding: The position does not inherently constitute an office of profit, provided independence is maintained through appointment processes and lack of direct government controlState of Kerala VS Prof. T. V Balan Ex-Member, Ombudsman, Priyendu - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 46.
These features ensure independence: The officeholder’s status is explicitly equated to that of a High Court judge, with safeguards to prevent disadvantageous variations State of Kerala VS Prof. T. V Balan Ex-Member, Ombudsman, Priyendu - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 46. Members are barred from other offices of profit, legislative membership, or compromising employment State of Kerala VS Prof. T. V Balan Ex-Member, Ombudsman, Priyendu - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 46Thoppil Sreekumar VS State Of Kerala - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 687.
The Ombudsman's role is investigative and administrative, not policy execution or financial control, distancing it from government influence Pradyut Bordoloi VS Swapan Roy - 2000 8 Supreme 506. Procedural checks—like judicial input—prevent interference, aligning it more with judicial than executive roles.
Courts apply multi-factor tests: Several tests are ordinarily applied such as whether the Government makes the appointment, whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder of the office, whether the Government pays the remuneration, whether the functions performed by the holder are carried on by him for the Government and whether the Government has control over the duties and functions of the holder Moosa, Manager, Amlp School VS State Of Kerala - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 997.
For the Ombudsman:- No absolute removal power due to judicial safeguards.- Remuneration: Judge-like, but independence-focused.- Functions: Autonomous dispute resolution.
In a related Kerala case, amendments reducing Ombudsman terms were upheld, but petitioners received salary compensation for unserved periods, affirming statutory protections without implying profit office status STATE OF KERALA vs T V BALAN Advocate - GILBERT GEORGE, GILBERT GEORGE,M K DAMODARAN (SR ),O V MANIPRASAD - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34506.
Contrast this with cases where positions were deemed offices of profit:
Aided school teachers: Held as such due to state control over employment, disqualifying them from elections. A teacher of an aided educational institution... is a person holding an 'office of profit', under the Government of State of Kerala Moosa, Manager, Amlp School, Alanalloor VS State of Kerala, Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 88. This prioritized education duties under Article 21A over political participation Moosa, Manager, Amlp School VS State Of Kerala - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 997.
Directors in corporations: Not offices of profit if no removal power, no direct remuneration from government, and no control over duties, as in Maharashtra Seeds Corporation case Gajanan Samadhan Lande VS Sanjay Shyamrao Dhotre - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 1055.
Insurance Ombudsman: Focuses on mediation; no blanket profit office classification, with rules allowing representation post-mediation N. Vijaya Laxmi VS Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 241.
These highlight that independence trumps mere government linkage, supporting the Ombudsman's non-disqualifying status Abdul Shakur VS Rikhab Chand - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 85V. S. ACHARYA VS RETURNING OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA SOUTH-WESTGRADUATES CONSTITUENCY, MANGALORE AND OTHERS - 1990 0 Supreme(Kar) 227.
Parliament's role in exemptions, as upheld in challenges to the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, underscores legislative discretion: Which offices should be excluded... is a question that properly lies in the legislative domain Consumer Education & Research Society VS Union of India - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1479.
While generally independent:- Direct financial control or policy execution could reclassify it.- Violations of appointment safeguards might invite scrutiny.
For instance, if government influence overrides judicial consultations, disqualification risks rise Abdul Shakur VS Rikhab Chand - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 85.
The Kerala Ombudsman, with its judicial-like independence, appointment safeguards, and autonomous functions, typically does not qualify as an office of profit State of Kerala VS Prof. T. V Balan Ex-Member, Ombudsman, Priyendu - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 46Abdul Shakur VS Rikhab Chand - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 85. This preserves its role in local governance without electoral disqualifications.
Key Takeaways:- Independence via consultations and judge-status is crucial.- Criteria focus on control, not just government creation.- Similar roles (e.g., teachers) differ due to direct oversight.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, as classifications may shift with facts. For personalized guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References: State of Kerala VS Prof. T. V Balan Ex-Member, Ombudsman, Priyendu - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 46, Abdul Shakur VS Rikhab Chand - 1957 0 Supreme(SC) 85, Pradyut Bordoloi VS Swapan Roy - 2000 8 Supreme 506, Thoppil Sreekumar VS State Of Kerala - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 687, STATE OF KERALA vs T V BALAN Advocate - GILBERT GEORGE, GILBERT GEORGE,M K DAMODARAN (SR ),O V MANIPRASAD - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34506, Moosa, Manager, Amlp School, Alanalloor VS State of Kerala, Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 88, Gajanan Samadhan Lande VS Sanjay Shyamrao Dhotre - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 1055, Consumer Education & Research Society VS Union of India - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1479.
#OfficeOfProfit, #KeralaLaw, #Ombudsman
Sec.10(1) which enables the Government to refer an allegation to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman starts with a non obstante clause, and going further it states that the Government 'may' refer any allegation to Ombudsman, and they in combination makes it evident that it is not mandatory that the Government ... An interdiction of the variety imposed on a police office to enquire into or investigate a complaint as is found in Sec.17A of the Prevention of Courrption Act, 1988, is not the....
(6) On expiry of his term of office as Ombudsman, he shall not be eligible for reappointment as Ombudsman or for further appointment to any office of profit under the Government of Kerala or in any corporation, company, society or university by or under the control of the Government ... (2) The Governor shall, on the advice of the Chief Minister, appoint a person who has held the post of a Judge of the High Court as Ombudsman. .......
in any office of profit as mentioned in this sub-section. ... Section 271G(6) provides that on expiry of the term of office as Ombudsman, a person shall not be eligible for re-appointment as Ombudsman or for further appointment to any office of profit under the Government of Kerala or in any Corporation, Company, Society or University by or under the control of ... (6) On expiry of his term of office as Ombudsman,....
... (6) On expiry of his term of office as Ombudsman, he shall not be eligible for re-appointment as Ombudsman or for further appointment to any office of profit under the Government of Kerala or in any corporation, company, society or university by or under the control of the Government ... Section 271G(6) provides that on expiry of the term of office as Ombudsman, a person shall not be eligible for re-appointment as Ombu....
Appellant(s) Vs 1.The Internal Ombudsman, Canara Bank, Head Office, No.112, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560 002. ... 2.The Assistant General Manager, Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai – 600 001. 3.The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Srivilliputtur – 626 125. Virudhunagar District. ... 21-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Jeni To Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai – 600 001. 3.The B....
service of the Union of India and has held a post of joint secretary to the Government of India or of equivalent post; or has served for at least twenty-five years in the insurance industry and has held a post not less than one level below that of director of a board. ... Respondent No.2 i.e., office of the insurance ombudsman has filed counter-affidavit through Smt. S. Nirmala Devi, Secretary, office of the insurance ombudsman, Hyderabad. ... In Ind....
On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the “hatchery” comes under “poultry” farming which is covered under Regulation 80(5) ... (ii) i.e. allied agricultural activities. ... Party no.2-unit comes under allied agricultural category, the petitioner should have issued bills according to this category. Without considering the request of opp. Party no.2, the petitioner issued bills applying tariff for G.P. category. ... The #HL_....
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AS OFFICE BEARER: 1) No person shall be eligible for election for any of the post of office bearer unless he is an employee of Commercial Tax Department and a member of either in The AP Commercial Taxes Non-Gazetted Officers' Association, Hyderabad or APCT Gazetted ... (iii) Whether the Order passed by the Ombudsman in Case No. 6 of 2024, calls for any interference? 11. ... Officers' Association. 2) The office bearers shall be eligible for re-election. ......
P1 and thereby found that the 2nd respondent herein falls under LT-VII-A (commercial) category. However the 1st respondent on appeal found as per Ext. P2 that Ext.P1 order will not sustain and same was set aside. The Forum found that it is not purely a commercial profit making business. ... P2 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman in representation no. ... P2 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman in representation no. ... Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any o....
P1 and thereby found that the 2nd respondent herein falls under LT-VII-A (commercial) category. However the 1st respondent on appeal found as per Ext. P2 that Ext.P1 order will not sustain and same was set aside. The Forum found that it is not purely a commercial profit making business. ... P2 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman in representation no. ... P2 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman in representation no. ... Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any o....
In this background, we shall examine the ratio laid down in some of the cases with respect to other general tests to be applied. As already noticed that in order to determine whether a person holds an office of profit under the Government. In Maulana Abdul Shakur's case as noted above one of the main tests laid down is that the power of the Government to appoint a person to an office or profit or to continue him in that office or revoke his appointment at their discretion and payment from out of Government revenues are important factors and that in determining whether a per....
Several tests are ordinarily applied such as whether the Government makes the appointment, whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder of the office, whether the Government pays the remuneration, whether the functions performed by the holder are carried on by him for the Government and whether the Government has control over the duties and functions of the holder. As already noticed that in order to determine whether a person holds an office of profit under the Government. In Maulana Abdul Shakur's case as noted above one of the main tests laid down....
In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) relied upon on behalf of the respondent, the Apex Court held that the object of enacting provisions like Article 102(1)(a) and Article 191(1)(a) is that a person who is elected to a Legislature or Parliament should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of governmental pressure. The term "office of profit under the Government" used in clause (a) is an expression of wider import than a post held under the Government which is dealt with in Part XIV of the Constitution. The Apex Court further held that i....
Which offices should be excluded for the purpose of disqualification, is a question that properly lies in the legislative domain. The key concern that certain offices or places held by a MP may be either incompatible with his/her duty as an elected representative of the people or affect his/her independence and thus weaken his/her loyalty to his/her constituency and, therefore, should disqualify the holder thereof, is a matter to be addressed by the Parliament. It is also not possible to classify and include the offices exempted from the said disqualification in a generic sense. In....
( 19 ) IF that be so, it will have to be next seen as to whether the office of profit held by the pradhana is an office of profit under the government of the state. At this juncture, it would be indeed necessary to refer to the Provisions of article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of india. Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India reads as under:"disqualification for membership.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
