The term ‘office of profit’ has been surfacing in news cycles lately, with the Election Commission recently issuing a notice to the Jharkhand Chief Minister. The accusation is that the Chief Minister held an office of profit by granting a mining lease to himself in 2021, which reportedly violates the Representation of the People Act. Before delving into the specifics of this case, it’s essential to understand the concept of ‘office of profit’.
Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are entrusted with holding the government accountable. To ensure fairness and impartiality, it is crucial that there is no conflict between their duties and interests. This principle underpins the concept of ‘office of profit’. If a legislator holds an ‘office of profit’ under the government, they might be susceptible to government influence and may not discharge their constitutional duties fairly.
Understanding ‘Office of Profit’
The law doesn’t provide a crystal clear definition of what comprises an office of profit. Instead, its interpretation has evolved over years through various court judgements. An office of profit is deemed to be a position that offers some financial gain, benefit, or advantage to the holder. The Supreme Court (SC) laid out the criteria for determining whether a person holds an office of profit in a landmark ruling in 1964. These factors include the appointing authority, power to dismiss, remuneration determination, source of remuneration, and the power associated with the position.
Constitutional Regulations Regarding ‘Office of Profit’
Articles 102 (1) and 191 (1) of the Indian Constitution prohibit an MP or an MLA from holding any office of profit under the central or state government. However, these provisions ensure a person holding a ministerial position is not deemed to be holding an office of profit. Moreover, a legislator holding a government position can also escape disqualification if the office in question has been exempted by law from such a restriction.
Further bolstering these constitutional safeguards, Parliament enacted the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, which has been revised and updated multiple times to expand the list of exemptions.
Significant Supreme Court Judgements on ‘Office of Profit’
Certain landmark judgments by the Supreme Court have clarified and expanded upon the concept of ‘office of profit’. According to Section 9A of the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951, a Chief Minister will be disqualified if they have a contract made for supplying goods or executing any work undertaken by the government.
In a 1964 case of CVK Rao vs Dentu Bhaskara Rao, a constitution bench of the SC held that a mining lease does not fall under ‘supply of goods’. In 2001, another three-judge bench of the SC ruled in the case of Kartar Singh Bhadana vs Hari Singh Nalwa & others that a mining lease does not equate to “execution of a work undertaken by the government”.
Should a legislator be disqualified on ‘office of profit’ grounds, they reserve the right to challenge the decision in the High Court. The adjudication must then be completed within four months, according to a precedent set by the SC.
Implications for Civil Service Examinations
The topic of ‘office of profit’ holds significance in the preparatory stage for the UPSC Civil Services Examination. In the 2019 examination, a question appeared considering the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, its amendments, and the definition of ‘office of profit.’ This reflects the importance of understanding the nuances of this legislative provision and its constitutional implications.
With an evolving interpretation defined by various court judgements, clear knowledge of ‘office of profit’ is necessary not only for civil services aspirants but also for elected officials to uphold their constitutional mandate with integrity.
