JAYA BACHCHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 08,2006

JAYA BACHCHAN Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

AMINUL HAQUE VS. ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN SHARMA SON OF SHRI DEEPAK SHARMA VS. VISHWAS SARANG SON OF SHRI KAILASH SARANG [LAWS(MPH)-2010-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
MOOSA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAN SAMADHAN LANDE VS. SANJAY SHYAMRAO DHOTRE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI MANOHAR KALE VS. ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD DIVISION [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA BHAGWANT TIPLE VS. DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH YADAV VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
AMINUL HAQUE VS. ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN DINBAJI JAMBHULE VS. DR.DEORAO MADGUJI HOLI AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-153] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT GUNVANTRAO SABLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-164] [REFERRED]
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR PATNA & OTHERS VS. JANAKDHARI PRASAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
CHET RAM VS. JIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2008-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED AZHARUDDIN VS. G VIVEKANAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT GAONKAR VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-140] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARTIYA ANGANWADI KAMGAR UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-292] [REFERRED TO]
ANOKH SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(P&H)-2008-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
DR. G. VIVEKANAND VS. HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION [LAWS(APH)-2018-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
JAN HITAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED HANEEFA VS. SAUDATH ASHARAF [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-111] [REFERRED TO]
VARINDER KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
MANIBEN MAGANBHAI BHARIYA VS. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DAHOD [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-357] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADEEP PRATAP DEO VS. HON?BLE GOVERNOR OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
MUK PERTIN VS. LOMBO TAYENG [LAWS(GAU)-2015-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUR RAHIM LASKAR VS. KHALILUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
N L JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2007-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
ZALIL AHMAD VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-452] [REFERRED TO]
PURNO AGITOK SANGMA VS. PRANAB MUKHERJEE [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2011-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. PANDIT MUKESH MAYAK [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
ASHARAF KOKKUR VS. K.V. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-66] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
SULPHIKAR VS. RAFEEQ [LAWS(KER)-2018-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-42] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The challenge in this petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, is to the order of the Hon'ble President of India, dated 16.03.2006, whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under cl. (1) of Art. 103 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble President has decided, after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission as required by Art. 103(2), that the petitioner stands disqualified for being a member of the Rajya Sabha on and from 14.07.2004. The challenge is also to the opinion dated 2.03.2006 rendered by the Election Commission to the Hon'ble President, under cl. (2) of Art. 103, that the petitioner became disqualified under Art. 102 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India for being a member of the Rajya Sabha on and from 14.07.2004 on her appointment by the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Chairperson of the U.P. Film Development Council.
(2.)The Government of Uttar Pradesh, by Official Memorandum dated 14.07.2004, appointed the petitioner as the Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council (for short the Council') and sanctioned to her the rank of a Cabinet Minister with the facilities as mentioned in O.M. No.14/1/ 46/87-C.Ex. (1) dated 22.03.1991 (as amended from time to time). The benefits to which she became entitled, as a consequence, are :
(i) Honorarium of Rs. 5,000.00 per month;

(ii) Daily allowance @ Rs. 600.00 per day within the State and Rs. 750.00 outside the State. Rs. 10,000.00 per month towards entertainment expenditure.

(iii) Staff car with driver, telephones at office and residence, one P.S., one P.A. and two class IV employees.

(iv) Body Guard and night escort.

(v) Free accommodation and medical treatment facilities to her and family members.

(vi) Free accommodation in government circuit houses/guest houses and hospitality while on tour.

(3.)The Election Commission, after referring to the facts and the law enunciated by this Court in several decisions, has expressed the opinion that the office of Chairperson of the Council to which the petitioner was appointed by the State Government by O.M. dated 14.07.2004, on the terms and conditions specified therein, is an "office of profit" under the Government of Uttar Pradesh for purposes of Art. 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Commission also found that Sec. 3 of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 did not exempt the said office of profit from disqualification under Art. 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.