SHIVAMURTHY SWAMI INAMDAR V.

AGADI SANGANNA
ANDANAPPA

CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted by: ISHITA

Batch 2022-27, BA LLB. Division E

PRN:22010223088

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In

February 2024

Under the Guidance of

Ms. Sakshi Tewari

(Course in Charge, Constitutional Law)

(email: [email protected])

1
INDEX

S. No. Particulars Pg. No.

1. Introduction 3
2. Facts of the case 4
3. Issues 4
4. Rules 4-5
5. Analysis 5-8
6. Judgement 8
7. Conclusion 8
8. Bibliography 9

2
INTRODUCTION

The term "Office of profit" remains undefined within the Constitution of India and the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 1. Its scope is inferred from judicial rulings and
determinations made by competent bodies such as the Election Commission and the
President.

The objective behind this provision is to safeguard the independence of Members of

Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). This is achieved by
preventing them from being influenced or susceptible to any undue favors or benefits, thus
mitigating potential temptations. Additionally, it aims to maintain the separation of powers
among the three branches of government and establish checks and balances. The concept of
the office of profit was adopted from British reforms during the Morley-Minto era. During
the drafting of the Constitution of India, Articles 102(1) 2 and 191(1)3 were formulated with
considerations for limitations at both the central and state levels, providing criteria for the
disqualification of MPs and MLAs, respectively.

The interpretation of "office" refers to a position with public significance and attached duties,
as explained by Lord Wright and Earl Jowitt's Dictionary. The term "profit" in office of profit
signifies pecuniary gain, but the amount of gain is not necessarily decisive. In legal terms,
Article 102(1) of the Constitution 4disqualifies MPs from holding offices that are not
expressly exempted by Parliament as offices of profit. The concept of an office pertains to a
position with public significance and associated duties, while the term "profit" refers to
pecuniary gain, with the actual amount of gain being a relevant factor in determining whether
an office qualifies as an office of profit.

ESSENTIALS OF THE CASE

Citation Codes: (1971) 3 SCC 870, 1970 UJ SC 1 334

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Judges: J.C Shah , K.S Hegde, JJ

1
Representation of the People Act, 1951, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India).
2
INDIA CONST. art. 102(1).
3
INDIA CONST. art. 191(1).
4
Supra Note 2.

3
Appellant: Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar

Respondents: Agadi Sanganna Andanappa

FACTS OF THE CASE

1) On January 13, 1967, official notifications were released to initiate the electoral
procedure for electing one Lok Sabha representative from the Koppal constituency
and eight representatives to the Mysore Assembly from the eight assembly
constituencies falling under the same Parliamentary jurisdiction.
2) The primary electoral contest within the Koppal Lok Sabha constituency and the
Yelburga assembly constituency transpired between the candidates fielded by the
Congress party and those presented by Lok Seva Sangh.
3) Subsequently, the results of the aforementioned elections were duly declared on
February 24, 1967.
4) Challenges to the validity of the electoral proceedings were lodged by the nominees
of Lok Seva Sangh, citing various legal grounds.

ISSUES

1) Whether he had an existing contract with the Government when he filed his
nomination.
2) Whether the allowances disbursed to members of the Taluk Development Board and
District Development Board constitute compensatory allowances.
3) Whether there exists sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant held the
position of Police Patil at the time of the nomination.

RULES
Major rules and laws considered by the court in deliberating the issues in the said case are the
following:

1) Section 116-A of The Representation of the people act, 19515

2) Section 6 of The Village Industries Act, 19566-

3) Section 4 of The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 19617

5
Representation of the People Act, 1951, § 116(A), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India).
6
The Village Industries Act, 1956, § 123(3), § 6, No. 61, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
7
The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961, § 4, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).

4
 4) Section 123(3) of The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 19618
5) Article 102 of the Indian Constitution9
6) Article 191 of the Indian Constitution10

ANALYSIS

Article 102 of the Constitution11 addresses disqualifications concerning Members of

Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). Article's clause (1)
mandates that anyone in a position of profit under the Indian government or any state will
face disqualification, unless Parliament has expressly excluded that position from the
classification of a profit-making office.12

In essence, this clause disqualifies MPs holding any office that Parliament has not explicitly
exempted from the definition of an office of profit. It is important to note that an office of
profit does not necessarily have to provide monetary benefits; even if it grants administrative
or executive authority, it can still fall under this category.

Interpretation of Office of Profit in other countries

 In UK, The House of Commons Disqualification Act of 1957 defines three main
reasons for disqualification:
1) Some office holders may face physical limitations preventing their attendance at
Westminster.
2) Concerns about potential patronage or favoritism.
3) Conflicts arising from constitutional duties.
 In the United States, Article 35 of the U.S. Constitution states that an office with
associated fees, salary, or compensation is generally classified as an office of profit. 13

Regarding the allegation that the returned candidate held an office of profit as Chairman of
the Co-operative Society, it was argued that since he was elected to this position by the
members of the cooperative society and not appointed by the government, he cannot be
considered as holding the office under the government. Despite the cooperative society's

8
The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961, § 123(3), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
9
INDIA CONST. art. 102.
10
INDIA CONST. art. 191.
11
Supra Note 10.
12
Supra Note 2.
13
Mr. Vyankatesh Singh, Office of Profit: A Comprehensive Analysis, Manupatra Articles.

5
dealings with controlled articles supplied by the government, this does not alter the legal
status of the office.

As for the Khadi and Village Industries Board established under the ‘Mysore Khadi and
Village Industries Act, 1956,’14it was noted that while the Board operates independently, it
receives substantial government funding and operates under government supervision.
Members of the Board receive allowances to cover expenses incurred while attending
meetings or committees, including a daily sitting fee. However, they are not entitled to both
the sitting fee and the daily allowance simultaneously, indicating that the sitting fee serves to
reimburse expenses. Thus, the sitting fee is categorized as a compensatory allowance.

Also, in the landmark case of Ravabba Subanna vs. G. S. Kaggeerappa15, the Supreme Court
ruled that the payment received by a person while holding the office should not be enough to
cover their daily expenses. This amount should not be seen as providing any profit to the
holder.

Additionally, the assertion that the candidate was disqualified due to an alleged existing
contract with the Central Government at the time of nomination was refuted. It was clarified
that any contract in question was between the society and the Central Government, with the
candidate merely serving as the Chairman of the society. As such, he cannot be considered a
party to the contract merely by virtue of receiving an honorarium.

Turning to the election of C.H Patil, challenges were raised regarding his alleged
disqualification as Police Patil, an office of profit under Article 191 16, and the existence of a
contract with the government at the time of nomination under Section 9(a) of the Act. The
High Court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish Patil's status as Police
Patil during nomination, especially considering the abolition of hereditary rights to the office
in 1963. Similarly, the alleged contract concerning road work lacked credible evidence, as
completion certificates indicated its termination prior to the nomination. Consequently, the
High Court's finding that no subsisting contract existed at the relevant time was deemed
justified.

The Supreme Court also laid down certain tests to determine the office of profit:-

1) Assessment of whether the appointment was made by the Government.

14
Mysore Khadi and Village Industries Act, 1956, No. 7, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
15
Ravabba Subanna vs. G. S. Kaggeerappa, AIR 1954 SC 653.
16
INDIA CONST. art. 191.

6
 2) Examination of whether the Government possesses the authority to dismiss or remove
the office holder.
3) Evaluation of whether the remuneration is provided by the Government.
4) Consideration of the nature of functions performed by the office holder.
5) Analysis of the extent and manner of Government control over the execution of those
functions.

The above tests were applied in various cases such as in Maulana Abdul Shakur vs. Rikhab
Chand and others17, it was ruled that the Manager of a school under the Dargah Khwaja
Saheb Act, 1955, does not hold an 'office of profit' as there was the absence of appointment
or removal authority by the Government of India.

All the above given five criteria are pertinent in establishing whether a specific position
qualifies as an office under the Government. To ascertain if such a position also constitutes
an 'office of profit', particular emphasis is placed on criteria 3, 4, and 5. Consequently, it
becomes imperative to assess the nature and significance of the duties carried out. It becomes
crucial to determine whether the individual holding a government office would incur any
expenses in fulfilling their responsibilities. These factors must then be linked to any
honorarium, allowance, or stipend associated with the position.

Further, in the case of Gurugovinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad18, the Supreme Court clarified
that an office under the government doesn't solely refer to government employment. Even if
the government possesses the authority to appoint, dismiss, control, provide directions on
how the office duties are carried out, and decide the remuneration, it still qualifies as an
'office of profit' under the government.

The court assessed the evidence presented by both parties, emphasizing the need for reliable
evidence to establish allegations. It scrutinized witness testimonies and documentary
evidence to ascertain the veracity of the allegations. In instances where evidence was lacking
or unreliable, the court dismissed the allegations.

This judgment is regarded as a seminal decision and has served as precedent in numerous
legal cases concerning matters related to the office of profit and electoral affairs. It has been
cited in various legal contexts, including the cases of Anokh Singh and Ors. v. Punjab State

17
Maulana Abdul Shakur vs. Rikhab Chand and others, 1958 AIR 52.
18
Gurugovinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad, 1964 AIR 254.

7
Election Commission and Ors.19, Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India20, U.C. Raman vs.
P.T.A. Rahim21, and several others.

JUDGEMENT

The Court concurred with the trial court's assessment that the evidence presented to
demonstrate the returned candidates' violation of Section 123(3) 22 held no merit. The Court
ascertained that the positions held by the returned candidates were abolished under the
Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 23, thereby leading to the dismissal of the
allegation under Section 123(7)24. The court found that certain positions held by the
candidates were not offices of profit, as they did not involve pecuniary gain and were
compensated by allowances intended to cover expenses. The court concurred with the High
Court's ruling to dismiss the election challenges and impose costs on the petitioners due to
insufficient evidence supporting the disqualification claims. It found no credible proof
demonstrating that Patil had an existing contract with the Government when he submitted his
nomination. No documentary evidence was presented to support this assertion. Consequently,
the High Court's determination that there was no evidence of a current contract at the
pertinent time was considered reasonable.

CONCLUSION
The learner concurs with the verdict rendered by the esteemed court in the present case. The
ruling emphasizes the necessity of abiding by legal criteria when contesting election results,
highlighting the obligation on the party claiming disqualification to substantiate their
allegations. It clarifies the understanding of pertinent constitutional clauses and electoral
regulations pertaining to candidate disqualification. Additionally, the judgment establishes a
model for forthcoming election disagreements, offering direction to parties on the evidentiary
prerequisites and legal concepts entailed in disputing election results. Furthermore, it upholds
the principles of equity, openness, and procedural justice within the electoral system, thereby
upholding the credibility of democratic elections and fostering public confidence in the
electoral process.

19
Anokh Singh and Ors. v. Punjab State Election Commission and Ors., MANU/SC/0918/2010.
20
Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India, MANU/SC/2395/2006.
21
U.C. Raman vs. P.T.A. Rahim, MANU/SC/0674/2014.
22
The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961, § 123(3), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
23
The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
24
The Mysore Village Office Abolition Act, 1961, § 123(7), No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).

8
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. DD Basu, Introduction to the Constitution Of India (Lexis Nexis, 2015).

2. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (Lexis Nexis, 2017).
3. VN Shukla, Constitution Of India, (Eastern Book Company, 2022).

Legal Database

1. Manupatra
2. SCCOnline
3. CaseMine
4. SageJournals