In a recent case that has garnered national interest, the Allahabad High Court ruled to annul the election of Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan, as a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Uttar Pradesh. This decision was based on allegations that Khan was under the age of 25 when he filed his nomination in 2017, disqualifying him from election eligibility.
Legal Background and Precedents
The Indian Constitution and the Parliament have established a set of qualifications and disqualifications for individuals aiming to be elected as members of State Legislative Assembly and State Legislative Council.
Qualifications: Constitutional and Parliamentary Provisions
The Constitutional Provisions state that an individual needs to be a citizen of India and must subscribe to an oath or affirmation before a person authorised by the Election Commission. The required age is not less than 25 years for the legislative assembly and not less than 30 years for the legislative council. Other necessary qualifications are prescribed by Parliament.
According to the Parliamentary Provisions through Representation of People Act (1951), a person to be elected to the legislative assembly should be an elector for an assembly constituency in the concerned state. The aspirant should be a resident in the concerned state and be a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe if they wish to contest a seat reserved for them. However, these members can also contest a seat not reserved for them.
Disqualifications: Constitutional and Parliamentary Provisions
On the other hand, disqualifications include holding an office of profit under the Union or State government, being declared of unsound mind by a court, insolvency, having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state, or being disqualified under any law made by Parliament.
Under the Representation of People Act (1951), an individual should not have been found guilty of certain election offences or corrupt practices. They should not have been convicted for any offence resulting in imprisonment for two or more years, fail to lodge an account of election expenses within the time, hold interest in government contracts, works or services, hold an office of profit in a corporation in which the government has at least a 25 per cent share or have been dismissed from government for corruption or disloyalty.
Key Facts
| Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Minimum age for legislative assembly | 25 years old |
| Minimum age for legislative council | 30 years old |
| Who can contest reserved seats | Members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes |
| Penalty for election offences or corrupt practices | Disqualification from elections |
Election Petition and Dispute Resolution
Regarding election disputes, the Constitution mandates that no election to the Parliament or the state legislature is to be questioned except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided by the appropriate legislature. Since 1966, high courts have been the sole authorities responsible for trying these election petitions.
However, the appellate jurisdiction rests with the Supreme Court alone. Article 323 B empowers the appropriate legislature to establish a tribunal for the adjudication of election disputes. Consequently, if an election tribunal is established, an appeal from its decision lies to the high court.
In this context, the decision regarding Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan’s election reflects the legal mechanisms for addressing electoral disputes and ensuring fair representation in India’s democratic institutions.