CC648 , [2009 ]13 SCR664 , 2009 (9 )UJ4214 , ,MANU/SC/1499/2009
K.G. Balakrishnan#R.V. Raveendran#J.M. Panchal#328SC3020Judgment/OrderJT#MANU#MLJ#RCR (Civil)#SCALE#SCC#SCR#UJK.G. Balakrishnan,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Decision on Questions as to Disqualifications of Members.,Parliament,The Union,Decision on Questions as to Disqualifications of Members.,Parliament,The Union,Vacation of Seats,Parliament,The Union,Disqualification on Ground of Defection,Constitution of India16939,89186,17022,55577,55578,70550,17339,70453,17023,17031,55579,17021,17024,17019,17124,17125,17126,17127,17021,17022,17023,17024,16910,56687,56770,56839,56841,56844 -->
MANU/SC/1499/2009
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 411 and 448 of 2006
Decided On: 24.08.2009
Appellants: Consumer Education and Research Society Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.
1. These two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation, challenge the constitutional validity of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 (Act No. 31/2006, Hereinafter 'Amendment Act'). It amended the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 (Hereinafter `Principal Act'). The Amendment Act adds to the list of `Offices of Profit' which do not disqualify the holders thereof for being chosen as, or for being the Members of Parliament.
Historical background
2. The expression `Office of Profit' is not defined in the Constitution. The view that certain offices or positions held by a Member of Parliament (Hereinafter also referred to as `MP') may be either incompatible with his/her duty as an elected representative of the people, or affect his/her independence, and thus weaken the loyalty to his/her constituency and, therefore, should disqualify the holder thereof, had its origin in the Parliamentary history of the United Kingdom. (See: The Introduction to the Bhargava Committee Report on Office of Profit, dated 22.10.1955). The concept of `office of profit' has a history of more than four centuries in United Kingdom and it has evolved through many phases. The first was the "privilege" phase (prior to 1640). The second was the "corruption" phase (from 1640). The third was the "ministerial responsibility" phase (after 1705). Initially the English Parliament claimed priority over the services of its Members and it was considered derogatory to its privilege if any of its Members accepted some other office which would require a great deal of their time and attention. This led to the evolution of the idea that the holding of certain offices would be incompatible with the responsibilities of a Member of Parliament. This was the first phase. During the second phase, there was a protracted conflict between the Crown and the House of Commons. Loyalty to the King and the loyalty to the House of Commons representing the will of the people........