B.R. kapur vs The State of TamilNadu

Admin

55 seconds ago

Citation : AIR 2001 (7) SCC 231

This article is by Sharon , a student at Sathyabama institute of science and technology

Summary of the case :

The Respondent, Ms. J. Jayalalitha, was chief minister of the Territory of Tamil Nadu somewhere in the range of 1991 and 1996.
During said residency, she was convicted for offenses culpable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act , 1988 (PC Act) and for the offense under section 409 of IPC and condemned for 3 years of detainment was the respondent for the case whose appointment as the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu was addressed as she was plainly disqualified under Article 191 and Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In 2001 Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu Jayalalitha nomination were dismissed.
Her nomination were dismissed based on disqualification under Representation of people Act and Constitution.
However her party won the political election by greater part. Further party members assigned her for CM and she was named as CM by the Governor.
Section 8(3) states that any individual who has been convicted for any offense and condemned for at least 2 years will be disqualified from being an individual from the Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly or the council from the date of conviction to six years of his/her release.
The issue began when the Petitioners filed a writ challenging her appointment as a CM .

Issues Raised :

Whether an individual who is disqualified to be an individual of the State Legislature can be named as the Chief Minister under Article 164(4) ?
Whether the desire of individuals assumes a huge part while barring them from challenging elections ?
Whether the Governor choice under Article 361 of the Constitution draws in judicial review ?

The court held that :

A person who is convicted for a criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment cannot be appointed as the Chief Minister of a State and cannot continue to perform as such . Hence appointment of Jayalalitha as the C.M of TamilNadu is not valid .
In a Parliamentary Democracy government, the desire of individuals should win for any reason. Since the appointment of the respondent was upheld by most individuals in the express, the ECI or the Court can’t bar the arrangement of such an individual.
In the current case the governor need not be made answerable to the court. It was fought that a Governor is immune to legal review under Article 361, that is to say, he isn’t liable to the legal executive for any choice taken by him in the activity of execution of the powers and obligation of his office.

Consequence :

The Supreme Court judgement announcing Jayalalitha’s designation as Chief minister of Tamil Nadu being void and unlawful depended on her conviction by the Preliminary Court in the R. Sai Bharat v. J. Jayalalitha (TANSI land procurement case), after which she was replaced by O. Paneerselvam. Fathima Beevi, who was the Legislative leader i.e the governor of Tamil Nadu around then had controlled the pledge of Jayalalitha, was approached to step down from her post by the minister of law after the judgment. She surrendered and sent a report to the President of India supporting her choice, after which the then governor of Andhra Pradesh Dr C. Rangarajan was selected as the governor of Tamil Nadu. Her conviction was turned around by the High Court in 2001 on the ground of absence of proof, and she again turned into the chief minister of Tamil Nadu by winning the 2002 Tamil Nadu gathering by-political race. In an appeal for Supreme Court in 2003 for the land procurement case, it maintained the perspective on the High Court and absolved Jayalalitha.

Conclusion :

The instance of Jayalalitha is certainly not a one of a kind one. Many such ministers have manhandled their situation and the provisos of the uncovered text of the Constitution. In these cases, the Court has mediated to give equity to individuals and punish those committing extortion against the Constitution. In any case, at the same time the Court must remember to give the legitimate reasoning behind their judgment. The court for this situation said that “any hazardous or crazy understanding must be dismissed without a second thought”, but the Court in this very case consolidated ridiculous translation while articulating the judgement.

FAQ :