B.R. KAPUR V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2001) 7 SCC 231
FACTS
In the 2001 Legislative Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalitha of the AIADMK won by a large margin and was designated as the Chief Ministerial candidate. However, she was disqualified from contesting due to convictions in two separate cases related to her previous tenure as Chief Minister from 1991-1996.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) rejected her nomination papers, citing the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA), which disqualifies individuals sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for more than two years from contesting elections. Despite this disqualification, she contested and won the election, becoming Chief Minister. She had appealed her convictions to the High Court, which had released her on bail pending a final judgment.
ISSUES:
- Whether a disqualified person can be appointed as Chief Minister under Article 164(4) of the Indian Constitution.
- Whether the will of the people can override disqualifications from contesting elections.
- Whether the Governor's decision under Article 361 of the Constitution is subject to judicial review.
JUDGMENT:
- The Supreme Court held that Article 164 should be read in conjunction with Articles 173 and 191. Article 173 sets conditions for contesting elections, while Article 191 deals with disqualifications. Article 164 covers two significant stages: appointment as a Minister and becoming a Legislative Assembly member within six months. The Court interpreted that Article 191 encompasses both stages in Article 164. Therefore, J. Jayalalitha should not have been allowed to contest due to disqualification under Article 191.
- The Court invoked the doctrine of Constitutional morality. Electing a disqualified person contradicts the Constitution's moral values, and such actions by the legislative or executive branches violate the Constitution's sanctity.
- Regarding the Governor's decision, the Court held that Article 356(1) confers conditional power, subject to judicial review. The issuance of a quo warranto writ examines the legality of an individual holding public office, protecting the public from power abuse. Thus, the Governor's immunity under Article 361 does not prevent the issuance of a quo warranto writ against an individual unlawfully holding office.