M.V. RAJASHEKARAN AND ORS. versus VATAL NAGARAJ AND ORS.

M.V. RAJASHEKARAN AND ORS. versus VATAL NAGARAJ AND ORS.

The post of Chairman of One Man Commission, given government-sanctioned remuneration and control, is an office of profit. Remuneration received was not compensatory allowance per the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956. Therefore, holding such post attracted disqualification under Article 191, and rejection of nomination was proper. High Court erred in ruling otherwise.

Parties
Appellant: M.V. Rajashekaran and Ors.; Respondent: Vatal Nagaraj and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 2 of 2000
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Disqualification From Legislative Office, Office of Profit, Improper Rejection of Nomination, Karnataka Legislature (prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956
Constitutional Law Election Law Disqualification From Legislative Office Office of Profit Improper Rejection of Nomination Karnataka Legislature (prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.V. Rajashekaran and Ors.

Appellant

Vatal Nagaraj and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 2 of 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether post of Chairman of One Man Commission is 'office of profit' under Article 191 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether compensation received is covered under compensatory allowance exception
  3. 3 Whether holding such office disqualifies person from contesting legislative council elections

Ratio Decidendi

The post of Chairman of One Man Commission, given government-sanctioned remuneration and control, is an office of profit. Remuneration received was not compensatory allowance per the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956. Therefore, holding such post attracted disqualification under Article 191, and rejection of nomination was proper. High Court erred in ruling otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of Karnataka High Court set aside.
  • Appellants declared duly elected to Karnataka Legislative Council.