One of the key cases involving a person’s eligibility to be the Chief Minister was br kapur v state of tamil nadu in 2001. The case started when AIADMK leader J. Jayalalithaa was named Tamil Nadu’s chief minister despite being barred from running for office because of a criminal record. Public interest lawyer B.R. Kapur contested her nomination, citing concerns about the rule of law and constitutional obligations.
br kapur v state of tamil nadu Case Facts
- In 2001, the State of Tamil Nadu held elections for the Legislative Assembly. J. Jayalalitha, a member of the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), won a landslide majority and was approved to run for Chief Minister. Nevertheless, her candidacy was refused.
- She was found guilty and given prison sentences in two different cases in 2000. The first case involved offenses committed during her previous tenure as Chief Minister of the State, which ran from 1991 to 1996.
- She was sentenced to three years in jail under section 409 of the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) and two years under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter PCA).
- Her request to be disqualified under the representation of people act, 1951 (henceforth RPA) was denied by the election commission of india (ECI), which prevented her from running for office. Any individual found guilty of any crime and given a sentence of harsh imprisonment lasting longer than two years is automatically disqualified under Section 8(3) of the RPA. From the date of the elections until six years after his release, the individual is not allowed to run for office.
- She nevertheless continued to run for office, and following the AIADMK’s overwhelming victory, she was sworn in as Tamil Nadu’s chief minister. In addition, she had appealed her conviction to the High Court, which at that point postponed the jail terms in accordance with Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter CrPC) and freed the respondent on bond. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision was still awaited.
br kapur v state of tamil nadu Issues
- Is it possible for a non-elected member whose nomination to run in the legislative assembly elections was denied to become chief minister under article 164 of the indian constitution?
- Does judicial review find the governor’s judgment made in accordance with article 361 of the indian constitution fascinating?
Contentions by the Parties
- The state of Tamil Nadu contended that section 164(2) does not authorize the qualifications or disqualifications of a chief minister or minister, and that the court lacks the authority to investigate a person’s qualifications because the constitution does not look into an individual’s qualifications. It was contended that the governor is exempt from legal accountability for whatever decisions he makes while carrying out his official duties and exercising his powers.
- Therefore, the court is unable to contest the governor’s nomination of Jayalalitha. It was once stated that in a parliamentary democracy, the will must prevail no matter what. The court or the election commission of india cannot prevent the nomination of a person who was backed and elected by the majority of the people in the state of Tamil Nadu.
br kapur v state of tamil nadu Judgment
The Supreme Court rendered a historic decision that has broad ramifications:
- The Court decided that no one may be nominated as Chief Minister if they were barred from holding public office by Section 8 of the representation of the people act, 1951.
- It decided that the disqualification under the representation of the people act is not superseded by the provisions of Article 164(4), guaranteeing that an individual barred from running for office cannot circumvent the law to assume office.
Jayalalitha’s case is not exceptional. Numerous Ministers have misused their authority and the gaps in the Constitution’s basic language. The Court has stepped in to help people in these situations and punish those who violate the Constitution by engaging in fraud. But in the process, it’s equally critical that the Court remember to provide the appropriate justification for its ruling. In the present case, the court included a ludicrous interpretation in its ruling, despite having stated that any risky or nonsensical reading must be rejected out of hand. With all due respect, the author states that Article 164(4) should be removed since it is superfluous and should be kept consistent to avoid sporadic conflicts.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf