PURNO AGITOK SANGMA versus PRANAB MUKHERJEE

PURNO AGITOK SANGMA versus PRANAB MUKHERJEE

Neither post held by the respondent constituted an office of profit under Article 58(2) at the relevant time; respondent had resigned from both offices before filing nomination papers. The Chairman of ISI does not attract the profit element, and by statutory exclusion, is not a disqualification. The election petition did not merit a full hearing and was dismissed at the preliminary stage under Order 39, Rule 13.

Parties
Petitioner: Purno Agitok Sangma; Respondent: Pranab Mukherjee
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Preliminary Hearing Under Order 39, Rule 13 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966
Outcome
Election petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Office of Profit, Disqualification for Presidential Election, President of India Qualifications
Election Law Constitutional Law Office of Profit Disqualification for Presidential Election President of India Qualifications

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Purno Agitok Sangma

Petitioner

Pranab Mukherjee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Preliminary Hearing Under Order 39, Rule 13 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether holding the office of Chairman, Council of Indian Statistical Institute and Leader of the House in Lok Sabha constituted 'office of profit' and caused disqualification under Article 58(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the election petition deserved a full and regular hearing under Order 39, Rule 20 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966

Ratio Decidendi

Neither post held by the respondent constituted an office of profit under Article 58(2) at the relevant time; respondent had resigned from both offices before filing nomination papers. The Chairman of ISI does not attract the profit element, and by statutory exclusion, is not a disqualification. The election petition did not merit a full hearing and was dismissed at the preliminary stage under Order 39, Rule 13.

Court Disposition

Election petition dismissed.

Orders

  • The election petition cannot be set down for regular hearing and is dismissed under Order 39, Rule 13 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966.