The term ‘Office of Profit’ refers to a situation where a Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislature (MLA), as part of their role, can potentially fall under the influence of the government. This could result in them not carrying out their constitutional responsibilities in an impartial manner. A recent case involves the Jharkhand Chief Minister who is accused of holding such an office and has requested the government to publicize the crime and its corresponding punishment.
The key concern behind the disqualification under the office of profit law is the potential susceptibility of legislators to government influence. The intention is to ensure no conflict arises between an elected members’ duties and their interests. Therefore, this law attempts to reinforce the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.
What Constitutes an ‘Office of Profit’?
While the law doesn’t explicitly clarify what qualifies as an office of profit, the definition has evolved through interpretations made in various court judgments over time. It’s generally considered to be a position that results in some form of financial gain, advantage, or benefit for the individual holding it. The actual profit amount isn’t significant.
In 1964, the Supreme Court clarified that the primary test for determining whether a person holds an office of profit is the test of appointment. Several factors are considered in this determination, including whether the government is the appointing authority, if it has the power to terminate the appointment, decides the remuneration, the source of remuneration, and the power that comes with the position.
The Constitution and Holding an ‘Office of Profit’
According to Article 102 (1) and Article 191 (1) of the Constitution, MPs or MLAs (or MLCs) are prohibited from holding any office of profit under the central or state government. These articles clarify that merely being a minister does not necessarily imply holding an office of profit. However, Articles 102 and 191 do offer protection to a legislator occupying a government position if the office has been made immune to disqualification by law.
Further, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, amended several times, expands the exempted list, ensuring certain positions are not considered as offices of profit.
Supreme Court Judgments Related to ‘Office of Profit’
Over the years, the Supreme Court has passed various judgements clarifying the concept of ‘office of profit’. For instance, the CM can be disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951 as per apex court’s judgments. This section specifies that a contract must be made for supplying goods or executing any government work. Notably, a constitution bench ruled in 1964 that a mining lease does not qualify as a contract of supply of goods. In 2001, another judgement reiterated this by stating that a mining lease does not constitute execution of a government work.
However, there are provisions for legal recourse in case of disqualification. For instance, such disqualification can be challenged in the High Court and, per a Supreme Court order, the adjudication must be completed within four months.
Preparing for UPSC Civil Services Examination
For those preparing for the UPSC Civil Services Examination, understanding the ‘office of profit’ is essential. An example question from 2019 focused on The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, which exempts several posts from disqualification grounds of ‘Office of Profit’. Also, it clarified that the ‘Office of Profit’ isn’t well-defined in the Indian Constitution, but its interpretation has evolved over time through various court judgments.
