CASE REVIEW

B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu

{2001(7) SCC 231}

Guided by:- Kartikeya Sir

Presented byPraveen Roll – 882041BBA LLB ( 3rd semester )

JUDGES IN THE BENCH

Justice S. P. BHARUCHAJustice G. B. PATTANAIKJustice Y. S. SABHARWALJustice RUMA PALJustice BRIJESH KUMAR

Praveen Kls

BRIEF FACTS

Elections to the Legislative Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu was held in 2001. AIADMK secured a landslide majority and consequently chose their leader J. Jayalalitha as the Chief Ministerial candidate.

Jayalalitha, however, had been denied permission to contest the elections.

The Election Commission rejected her nomination papers on account of her disqualification under the provisions of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951.

Her convictions were under appeal and the High Court, on an application, suspended the sentence of imprisonment, ordering her release on bail.

Elected as the leader of the majority party in the State Assembly and now out on bail, the Governor appointed Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister.

Praveen Kls

MAJOR ISSUES OF

THE CASEPraveen Kls

1st ISSUE

Whether a person who is disqualified to be a member of the state

legislature can be appointed as the Chief Minister under article

164(4)?Praveen Kls

ARGUMENTSLEGAL PROVISIONS

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 164(4)Article 163(1)Article 173Article 191

Also about “constitutional morality”

Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Jayalalitha had been convicted under

Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Praveen Kls

Convictions under these provisions brought Jayalalitha under the purview of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951(RPA) which provides inter alia for the conduct of elections to the State Legislatures, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership.

In particular, section 8(3) of the Act disqualifies any person “convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.” from the date of such conviction to a further period of six years since his/her release.

CONT.

Praveen Kls

“A person who is convicted for a criminal offence and is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than 2 years cannot be appointed as the Chief Minister of a state under Article 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such. Hence the appointment of Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was not legal and valid and that she cannot continue to function as the same.”

THE COURT HELD THAT …

Praveen Kls

2nd ISSUE

Whether the appointment of Chief

Minister by the Governor is judicially

reviewable?Praveen Kls

The immunity provided to the Governor under article 361 is certainly not extended to an appointee by the Governor. In the present case, when an application for issuance of a writ of quo warranto is being examined , it is not the Governor who is being made amenable to answer the court; it is the respondent appointee, who is duty-bound to satisfy that there has been no illegal usurpation of public office.

ARGUMENTS

Praveen Kls

“In the present case the Governor need not be

made answerable to the court.”

THE COURT HELD THAT …

Praveen Kls

3rd ISSUE

Whether the legal sequitur of the invalidation of the Chief

minister’s appointment would be that all acts, decisions,

transactions and appointments done by the chief minister would without any legal

efficiency be and null and void?Praveen Kls

ARGUMENTS

Jayalalitha could not have continued to have functioned as Chief Minister and such serious situation would have created a administrative chaos in the state as it would mean that the legal sequitur of the invalidation of the Chief minister’s appointment would be that all acts, decisions, transactions and appointments done by the chief minister would without any legal efficiency be and null and void.

Praveen Kls

THE COURT HELD THAT …

“All acts, decisions, transactions and appointments otherwise legal and valid performed during the acting of Jayalalitha or any of the Council of Ministers or by the government shall not be adversely affected.”Praveen Kls

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court in this decision has declared with a view to promote the highest democratic values in the country that a popular mandate cannot override the Constitution. The Court has observed –

“the Constitution prevails over the will of the people as expressed

through the majority party and the will prevails only if it is in accordance

with the provisions of the Constitution”.

Praveen Kls

Praveen Kls