MOHD AKRAM ANSARI Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('RP Act' for brevity) assailing the election to the Legislative Assembly of Delhi of Respondent No.4, namely Shri Haroon Yusuf. It is not in dispute that Shri Yusuf was, at the material time and continues to be the Chairman of the Delhi Wakf Board (DWB). This Objection had been raised at the time when the Nomination Papers had been filed by Mr. Yusuf on the grounds that in his capacity as Chairman of the DWB he was holding an Office of Profit.

(2.) Article 191 of the Constitution of India proclaims that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he holds any Office of Profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an Office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder. Section 15 of the Government of National Capital Territory Act, 1991 (for brevity NCT Act) similarly prescribes that a person shall be disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly if he holds an Office of Profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or Government of any Union Territory other than the Office declared by law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of any State or by the Legislative Assembly of the Capital or of any other Union Territory not to disqualify its holder. By virtue of Section 100 of the RP Act the High Court is duty-bound to declare the election of Shri Yusuf as void if it is of the opinion that on the date of his election he was disqualified to be so elected.

(3.) The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 had been enacted to declare that certain Offices of Profit under the Government shall not disqualify the holders thereof from being chosen as, or for being, Members of Parliament. Twenty-seven similar enactments appear to have been passed by different State Legislatures enumerating Offices of Profit which would not disqualify Members of its Legislative Assemblies on the grounds of their holding such offices.