Consider the following statements regarding Separation of powers doctrine in the context of office of profit:
1. The Sarkaria Commission report of 1988 suggested that the definition of office of profit should be expanded to include honorary positions in non-governmental organizations that receive partial funding from the Union budget.
2. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Governor of a State holds the authority to decide disqualification cases related to office of profit for members of the State Legislative Assembly upon the advice of the High Court.
3. The Election Commission of India, under Article 103, provides its opinion to the President regarding whether a member of Parliament has become subject to disqualification under the office of profit criteria.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because under Article 103, the President must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission before deciding on the disqualification of an MP. Statement 1 is incorrect as the Sarkaria Commission did not propose such an expansion; the term 'office of profit' remains undefined in the Constitution, relying instead on judicial interpretation and legislative exemptions. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 192, the Governor decides disqualification cases for State Legislators based on the opinion of the Election Commission, not the High Court.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a):
1. The Election Commission of India possesses the final judicial power to determine whether a member of Parliament has incurred disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) without seeking the opinion of the President.
2. Article 191(1)(a) mirrors the disqualification criteria for State Legislatures and includes a provision that the Governor of a State holds the authority to define which specific offices constitute a profit-yielding position.
3. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, serves as the primary constitutional document that defines the term 'office of profit' for both Union and State legislatures, replacing the need for individual parliamentary enactments.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because, under Article 103, the President decides on disqualification after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission, which is binding. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Constitution does not define 'office of profit,' and neither the Governor nor the President has the authority to define it; this is determined through judicial interpretation and legislative enactments. Statement 3 is incorrect because the term 'office of profit' is not defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or the Constitution; its meaning has been evolved by the Supreme Court through various judgments, and specific exemptions are provided by the Parliament and State Legislatures under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of Parliamentary Secretaries under office of profit laws:
1. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003 limits the size of the Council of Ministers to 15 percent of the total strength of the House and includes Parliamentary Secretaries within this specific numerical ceiling.
2. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution disqualifies a person from being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists various offices under the central and state governments that do not disqualify the holders from being members of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while the 91st Amendment Act of 2003 limits the Council of Ministers to 15% of the House strength, it does not include Parliamentary Secretaries in this ceiling, leading to frequent legal challenges regarding their status. Statement 2 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit, a term not defined in the Constitution but interpreted through judicial precedents. Statement 3 is correct because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a statutory list of offices exempted from disqualification, balancing legislative independence with executive necessity.
Consider the following statements regarding Retrospective validation of offices by legislative amendments:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, provided retrospective exemption to several offices held by members of Parliament, effectively nullifying pending disqualification petitions.
2. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to declare by law that the holder of an office shall not be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament.
3. The Election Commission of India possesses the constitutional authority to grant retrospective validation to offices of profit, a power exercised during the 2006 controversy regarding the National Advisory Council.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, retrospectively exempted 56 offices from disqualification, effectively settling the controversy surrounding MPs holding offices like the National Advisory Council. Statement 2 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) explicitly grants Parliament the legislative power to define offices that do not attract disqualification. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Election Commission of India has no authority to grant such exemptions; the power to declare an office exempt lies solely with the Parliament, while the President of India decides on disqualification matters based on the Election Commission's opinion.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between remunerative and non-remunerative offices:
1. The Committee on Offices of Profit was established in 1954 to review legislative appointments, and its recommendations are considered binding on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha when determining the disqualification of sitting members.
2. The Office of Profit rules allow for the exclusion of local body representatives from disqualification criteria, and the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003 defines the specific threshold of 15 percent for the Council of Ministers.
3. The Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) case encompasses the definition of profit, and the court ruled that the receipt of a daily allowance for attending committee meetings constitutes a remunerative office under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Committee on Offices of Profit is a parliamentary committee whose recommendations are advisory, not binding on the Speaker. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the 91st Amendment Act (2003) capped the Council of Ministers at 15% of the total strength of the House, it does not define the 'Office of Profit' criteria for local body representatives. Statement 3 is incorrect because, in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001), the Supreme Court clarified that 'profit' implies some pecuniary gain other than mere compensatory allowances, and the receipt of daily allowances for meeting expenses does not necessarily constitute an office of profit.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'office' and 'employment' in legal precedents:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1984 Biharilal Dobray v. Roshan Lal case held that the test of master-servant relationship is the primary factor for determining an office of profit, regardless of whether the position is under the government of a state or the central administration.
2. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides for a comprehensive list of exempted offices, and it was amended in 1991 to include the post of Chairperson of the National Commission for Women.
3. The 2006 Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India verdict clarified that the presence of profit is determined by the nature of the office held rather than the actual receipt of remuneration by the holder.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the 'profit' test focuses on whether the office is capable of yielding profit, not whether the holder actually received it. Statement 1 is incorrect because the master-servant relationship is a test for 'employment,' whereas the 'office of profit' test focuses on whether the office is independent of the holder and carries inherent authority or remuneration. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, does not contain a static list of all exempted offices; it is frequently amended, and the National Commission for Women Act, 1990, itself provides the statutory exemption for its Chairperson, not the 1991 amendment to the 1959 Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of powers doctrine in the context of office of profit:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices that do not disqualify their holders from being chosen as, or for being, a member of either House of Parliament.
2. The Supreme Court in the Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) case established that the office of profit doctrine applies to local municipal bodies in the same manner as it applies to members of the Union Parliament.
3. The Office of Profit Committee, established by the First Lok Sabha in 1954, recommended that all ministerial positions be exempted from disqualification to ensure the smooth functioning of the parliamentary system.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly lists offices under the government that do not attract disqualification for MPs. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Shibu Soren case dealt with the definition of 'office of profit' under Article 102(1)(a) for Parliament members, not local municipal bodies, which are governed by state-specific legislations. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit was formed to scrutinize offices to prevent conflict of interest, and there is no such recommendation to exempt all ministerial positions, as ministers are already constitutionally protected under the 'office of profit' exception for the Council of Ministers.
Consider the following statements regarding Disqualification process under the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
1. Under Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the President of India holds the authority to disqualify a member of Parliament for corrupt practices, and this decision is subject to a mandatory review by the Supreme Court within 90 days.
2. The 1959 Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act includes provisions for the disqualification of members holding the office of Chairman of the National Advisory Council, a position that was historically scrutinized during the 2006 legislative sessions.
3. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution prevents a person from holding an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) explicitly mandates that an MP cannot hold an office of profit unless exempted by Parliament. Statement 1 is incorrect because, under Section 8A of the RPA, 1951, the President acts on the opinion of the Election Commission regarding corrupt practices, and there is no provision for a mandatory 90-day Supreme Court review. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists offices that do not disqualify a holder, and the National Advisory Council chairmanship was specifically exempted from disqualification through legislative amendments during that period.
Consider the following statements regarding Disqualification process under the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
1. Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution allows the State Legislature to define offices of profit for local municipal bodies, and the Election Commission of India serves as the final appellate authority for disputes involving these municipal appointments.
2. The Election Commission of India provides an advisory opinion to the President under Article 103, or to the Governor under Article 192, regarding the disqualification of a member on grounds of holding an office of profit.
3. The Supreme Court in the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus case established that the power of the government to appoint and remove an individual is a significant factor in determining whether a post constitutes an office of profit.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Constitution does not empower the Election Commission to act as an appellate authority for municipal bodies; disqualification for local bodies is governed by state-specific laws. Statement 2 is correct as Articles 103 and 192 mandate that the President and Governor, respectively, must obtain and act according to the binding advisory opinion of the Election Commission when deciding on disqualification. Statement 3 is correct because the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus judgment established the 'power to appoint and remove' as a crucial test to determine if an office is under the government's control, thereby qualifying as an office of profit.
Consider the following statements regarding Criteria for determining 'influence' and 'control' over an office:
1. The 1959 Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act provides for the retrospective validation of offices held by members of the Rajya Sabha and grants the Speaker of the Lok Sabha power to declare any new office as exempt.
2. The Election Commission of India provides advisory opinions to the President or Governor regarding disqualification cases under Article 103 and Article 192 of the Constitution.
3. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, defines the term 'office of profit' in Section 7 and establishes the Election Commission as the final authority to determine disqualification for state legislators.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Articles 103 and 192 mandate that the President and Governor must obtain the Election Commission's opinion before deciding on disqualification, which is binding. Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1959 Act does not grant the Speaker power to exempt offices; rather, Parliament has the legislative power to exempt offices from disqualification. Statement 3 is incorrect because the term 'office of profit' is not defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or the Constitution, and the final authority for disqualification rests with the President or Governor, not the Election Commission.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Governor in disqualification of state legislators:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, exempts certain offices of profit held by members of Parliament, and many State Legislatures have enacted similar laws to protect specific posts from disqualification.
2. The Election Commission of India derives its authority to disqualify a state legislator for holding an office of profit directly from Article 193, which empowers the Commission to issue a final order without the prior concurrence of the Governor.
3. In the landmark case of Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001), the Supreme Court observed that the test for determining whether a person holds an office of profit is whether the government has the power to appoint, remove, or control the remuneration of the holder.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, and corresponding state laws provide legislative exemptions for specific offices to prevent disqualification. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) established that the core test for an 'office of profit' is the government's power to appoint, remove, and control the holder's remuneration. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 192, the Governor decides on the disqualification of a state legislator after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission, which is binding; the Commission does not possess the independent authority to issue a final disqualification order.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of holding chairmanship of statutory bodies on legislative membership:
1. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India disqualifies a person from being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State.
2. The 1959 Act includes the office of the Chairman of the National Commission for Women in its schedule, which allows sitting Members of Parliament to hold the position without attracting disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. The Election Commission of India possesses the constitutional authority under Article 103 to declare the chairmanship of any statutory body an office of profit, provided the Parliament has not enacted a specific exemption for that post.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit under the government, ensuring legislative independence. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, does not include the Chairman of the National Commission for Women in its schedule of exempted offices, meaning holding such a position can lead to disqualification. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 103, the power to decide on questions of disqualification lies with the President of India, who must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission, rather than the Commission possessing the independent authority to declare a post an office of profit.
Consider the following statements regarding Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) interpretation of profit:
1. The judgment established that the receipt of compensatory allowances, intended only to reimburse the holder for out-of-pocket expenses, does not constitute profit under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. The court determined that the test for profit in the 2001 case is equivalent to the criteria used for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, which focuses on the political affiliation of the office holder.
3. The ruling in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay interpreted Article 102(1)(a) to mean that any position held under the state government, including honorary fellowships, is subject to the pecuniary gain test defined in the 1950 Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) clarified that 'profit' implies a pecuniary gain beyond mere reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, such as compensatory allowances. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Tenth Schedule deals with anti-defection laws based on political party affiliation, which is legally distinct from the 'Office of Profit' criteria under Article 102(1)(a) related to holding an office under the government. Statement 3 is incorrect because the court emphasized that the test for an 'Office of Profit' is not merely the receipt of money, but whether the office itself is capable of yielding profit, and it does not categorically include all honorary positions as offices of profit.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of offices held by virtue of political party positions:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, specifically exempted 56 positions from the purview of office of profit, including the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council.
2. The Election Commission of India in 2006 recommended that the criteria for 'office of profit' should be based on the nature of the functions performed rather than the mere receipt of a salary or honorarium.
3. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not define the term 'office of profit', leaving the interpretation to judicial precedents and specific legislative exemptions enacted by Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2006 Amendment Act retrospectively exempted 56 positions, including the NAC Chairperson, to resolve controversies surrounding legislators holding dual offices. Statement 2 is correct because the ECI, in its 2006 report, advocated for a functional test focusing on the executive nature of the office rather than just pecuniary gain. Statement 3 is correct because the term 'office of profit' is not defined in the Constitution or the RPA, 1951, necessitating reliance on Supreme Court interpretations (e.g., Jaya Bachchan case) and specific legislative exemptions.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a):
1. The Supreme Court in the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case clarified that the term 'office of profit' involves a test of whether the office is capable of yielding a pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives the profit.
2. The Supreme Court ruling in the Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) case established that the receipt of a salary is the primary legal indicator for determining if an office is an office of profit under the Constitution.
3. Under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha holds the power to disqualify a member for holding an office of profit, provided the member has not declared the income to the Ethics Committee.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the 'office of profit' test focuses on the potential for pecuniary gain rather than the actual receipt of money. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Shibu Soren case (2001) emphasized that the core test is whether the office is capable of yielding profit or pecuniary gain, not merely the receipt of a salary. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Tenth Schedule pertains exclusively to disqualification on grounds of defection, whereas disqualification for an 'office of profit' is governed by Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), where the President or Governor decides the matter based on the opinion of the Election Commission.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of holding chairmanship of statutory bodies on legislative membership:
1. The Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment clarified that the term 'office of profit' refers to an office capable of yielding a pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives the remuneration.
2. The Office of Profit Committee, established under the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha, maintains a registry of statutory bodies, and its recommendations regarding disqualification are binding on the President of India.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices, including the chairmanship of certain statutory bodies, that do not disqualify their holders from legislative membership.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan (2006) held that 'pecuniary gain' is the test, not the actual receipt of money. Statement 3 is correct because the 1959 Act explicitly exempts specific offices from disqualification to balance legislative duties with public service. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit only makes recommendations to the Parliament or the Government, and it is the President who decides on disqualification based on the opinion of the Election Commission under Article 103, not the Committee.
Consider the following statements regarding Constitutional basis under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a):
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices that do not disqualify their holders from being chosen as, or for being, a member of either House of Parliament.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, introduced the definition of 'office of profit' into the original text of the Constitution to ensure uniform application across all Union Territories and States.
3. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution prevents a person from holding any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly exempts certain offices from disqualification to ensure the separation of powers. Statement 3 is correct because Article 102(1)(a) mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit unless Parliament has specifically exempted that office by law. Statement 2 is incorrect because the term 'office of profit' is not defined in the Constitution, and the 42nd Amendment did not introduce such a definition; its interpretation has been evolved solely through judicial pronouncements and legislative exemptions.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial reviewability of the President's decision on disqualification:
1. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, removed the requirement for the President to consult the Election Commission regarding disqualification, and this change was subsequently upheld in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) ruling.
2. The Election Commission of India derives its authority to determine the existence of an office of profit directly from Article 324, which allows the Commission to issue binding disqualification orders without seeking the concurrence of the President or the Governor.
3. Article 192 of the Constitution governs the disqualification of members of State Legislatures, and the Governor's decision in such matters is considered a discretionary power that remains outside the scope of judicial intervention since the 1978 amendments.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because the President and Governors are constitutionally mandated under Articles 103 and 192 to act according to the Election Commission's (EC) opinion, a requirement reinforced by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which reversed the 42nd Amendment's attempt to remove this consultation. The EC does not possess independent authority to disqualify members under Article 324; it only acts as an advisory body to the President or Governor, whose decisions remain subject to judicial review as established in the landmark 'Bruhanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking' and 'Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar' cases. Furthermore, the Governor's decision is not discretionary but must align with the EC's binding opinion, and the judiciary maintains the power to review these decisions to ensure they are not arbitrary or mala fide.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of offices held by virtue of political party positions:
1. The 1959 Act includes provisions that exempt the office of a Chairman or a member of a committee, commission, or body set up by the government, provided the holder does not receive any remuneration other than compensatory allowance.
2. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices that do not disqualify their holders from being members of Parliament, including the office of a Minister of State or Deputy Minister.
3. The Supreme Court in the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case clarified that the term 'profit' connotes an amount of pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives the payment.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, exempts bodies where only compensatory allowances are paid to prevent disqualification. Statement 2 is correct because the Act explicitly lists offices like Ministers of State and Deputy Ministers as exempt from disqualification to ensure the executive can function within the legislature. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that 'profit' refers to the potential for pecuniary gain or the existence of a lucrative office, rather than the actual receipt of money by the holder.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Election Commission in disqualification proceedings:
1. The 1954 Committee on Offices of Profit, chaired by Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, recommended that the power to disqualify members for holding an office of profit should be transferred from the President to the High Courts.
2. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, was enacted under Article 102(1)(a) to list specific offices, and it includes a provision that grants the Speaker of the Lok Sabha the final authority to determine the profit status of a member.
3. The Election Commission of India exercises original jurisdiction under Article 192 to disqualify a member of a State Legislative Assembly if the Governor finds the member has incurred a disqualification.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 1954 Committee did not recommend transferring disqualification powers to High Courts, as the Constitution vests this authority in the President/Governor based on ECI's opinion. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, only lists exempted offices and does not grant the Speaker authority to determine profit status; such disputes are decided by the President/Governor under Articles 103 and 192. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Election Commission of India exercises advisory jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction, as its opinion is binding on the Governor, who formally issues the disqualification order.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of Parliamentary Secretaries under office of profit laws:
1. The Election Commission of India has the authority to tender an opinion to the President or Governor regarding the disqualification of a legislator under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus Anwar case established that the power to appoint and remove an officer is the primary test for determining an office of profit, and this test applies to the office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
3. The Delhi High Court in the 2018 Rashtriya Mukti Morcha v. Union of India case set aside the appointment of 20 Parliamentary Secretaries in Delhi on the grounds that the order lacked the necessary concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 103 and 192 mandate that the President or Governor must obtain the Election Commission's opinion before deciding on the disqualification of a legislator. Statement 3 is correct because the Delhi High Court in 2018 quashed the appointment of 20 Parliamentary Secretaries, ruling that the order was issued without the mandatory concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the 1964 Gurushanthappa case established the 'power to appoint/remove' as a key test, the Supreme Court specifically excluded the offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker from the scope of 'office of profit' as they are constitutional offices essential to the functioning of the legislature.
Consider the following statements regarding Criteria for determining 'influence' and 'control' over an office:
1. The Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) clarified that the pecuniary gain test is not the only factor for determining an office of profit.
2. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists various offices under the central and state governments that do not disqualify the holder from being a member of Parliament.
3. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution prevents a person from holding an office of profit under the Government of India or any State government while being a member of either House of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) held that the 'material gain' test is secondary to whether the office is capable of yielding profit or pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives it. Statement 2 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a statutory list of offices that are exempted from disqualification, balancing legislative duties with public service. Statement 3 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) explicitly mandates that a person shall be disqualified from being a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or any State government, unless exempted by law.
Consider the following statements regarding Conflict of interest vs. office of profit doctrine:
1. The Supreme Court in the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus case determined that the power to appoint and remove an official is the secondary factor, while the actual receipt of a monthly salary from the consolidated fund serves as the conclusive test for an office of profit.
2. Under the provisions of Article 191(1)(a), a member of a State Legislative Assembly faces disqualification if they hold an office of profit under a local authority, as local bodies are legally classified as departments of the State Government for the purpose of legislative membership.
3. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Offices of Profit was established in 1954 to review the list of exempt offices, and its recommendations are binding upon the executive branch when determining the disqualification of a member under Article 103.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the *Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus (1969)* case established that the power to appoint and remove is a primary test, not secondary, and the receipt of salary is merely one factor among others like the nature of duties and control. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 191(1)(a) specifically exempts offices under local authorities unless they are specifically declared by law as offices of profit, and local bodies are distinct legal entities, not mere departments of the State Government. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit is an advisory body whose recommendations are not legally binding on the executive or the President, who makes the final decision on disqualification under Article 103 based on the Election Commission's opinion.
Consider the following statements regarding Status of Parliamentary Secretaries under office of profit laws:
1. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the automatic disqualification of any legislator appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary if the office carries a monthly salary exceeding the threshold defined in the 1959 Act.
2. In 2006, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act was enacted to exempt the post of Chairperson of the National Advisory Council from the purview of office of profit laws.
3. The Supreme Court in the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case clarified that the term 'office of profit' refers to an office capable of yielding a pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives the remuneration.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not contain a provision for automatic disqualification based on salary thresholds; disqualification is governed by the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, and the Constitution. Statement 2 is correct as the 2006 Amendment Act specifically exempted the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council from disqualification, a move famously linked to the Sonia Gandhi controversy. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the 'profit' element is determined by whether the office is capable of yielding pecuniary gain, making the actual receipt of remuneration irrelevant.
Consider the following statements regarding Exemption criteria via the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006, introduced a retrospective exemption for several offices, including the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, to protect members from disqualification proceedings initiated prior to that date.
2. The Schedule to the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists specific offices, such as the office of a Minister of State or Deputy Minister, which are exempted from the disqualification criteria under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Under the provisions of the 1959 Act, the President of India maintains the power to add new offices to the Schedule through an executive order without seeking the approval of either House of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct because the 2006 Amendment Act provided retrospective protection to various posts, including the National Advisory Council Chairperson, to resolve controversies surrounding MPs holding multiple offices. Statement 2 is correct as the 1959 Act explicitly exempts the offices of Ministers (Cabinet, State, or Deputy) from disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) to ensure the executive remains part of the legislature. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, does not grant the President power to amend the Schedule via executive order; any addition or modification to the list of exempted offices requires a formal amendment passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Election Commission in disqualification proceedings:
1. The Election Commission of India follows the guidelines laid down in the 1964 Santhanam Committee Report, which allows the Commission to initiate suo motu disqualification proceedings against members holding offices in public sector undertakings.
2. Article 102(2) of the Constitution provides that a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if they are so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule, and this process is managed by the Election Commission of India.
3. The Supreme Court in the Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) judgment established that the Election Commission possesses the power to remove a disqualification incurred by a member if the office held is deemed to be of a technical or advisory nature.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Election Commission cannot initiate suo motu proceedings; it only tenders an opinion to the President/Governor upon a reference, and there is no such Santhanam Committee mandate. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under the Tenth Schedule, the power to decide disqualification vests solely in the Speaker or Chairman of the respective House, not the Election Commission. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Shibu Soren case clarified the criteria for an 'Office of Profit' but did not grant the Election Commission the power to remove disqualifications, as that authority rests with the President or Governor under Article 103/192.
Consider the following statements regarding Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) ruling on remuneration:
1. The Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) applies only when the office holder draws a monthly salary exceeding the threshold set by the Parliament.
2. The 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court clarified that the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides for a list of exempted offices that include positions held by nominated members of the Rajya Sabha.
3. In Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court held that the test for determining an office of profit is whether the office is capable of yielding a pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives the remuneration.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court ruled that the 'pecuniary gain' test focuses on whether the office is capable of yielding profit, making the actual receipt of remuneration irrelevant. Statement 1 is incorrect as the court held that disqualification does not depend on the amount of salary, but rather on the nature of the office and the potential for profit. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists specific offices exempted from disqualification, but it does not provide a blanket exemption for all positions held by nominated members of the Rajya Sabha.
Consider the following statements regarding Exclusion of offices held by virtue of political party positions:
1. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State.
2. The Supreme Court ruling in the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus case established that any office held under a public sector undertaking is categorized as an office of profit under the Government of India as per the 1959 Act.
3. The Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act, 2003, introduced Article 102(2) which provides for the automatic disqualification of members holding political party positions that carry an annual salary exceeding 5 lakh rupees.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) explicitly mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit under the Central or State governments. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus case actually established that an office is not under the government if the government lacks the power to appoint or remove the holder, meaning PSUs are not automatically offices of profit. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, introduced the anti-defection provisions under Article 102(2) related to defection, not salary-based disqualification for political party positions.
Consider the following statements regarding Presidential power to seek Election Commission opinion:
1. The Office of Profit rules were first codified in the Government of India Act, 1935, and the current administrative procedure for seeking Election Commission opinion was introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
2. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, defines the term 'Office of Profit' in Section 7, and the President refers such cases to the Law Commission of India for an advisory opinion before reaching a final determination.
3. Under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha consults the President regarding the disqualification of a member holding an office of profit, and the President follows the advice of the Union Cabinet in such matters.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Office of Profit concept originates from the Act of Settlement 1701, and the President's duty to consult the Election Commission is mandated by Article 103, not the 42nd Amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect as the term 'Office of Profit' is not defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the President is constitutionally required to consult the Election Commission, not the Law Commission. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Tenth Schedule pertains to defection, where the Speaker is the sole authority, and disqualification for an Office of Profit under Article 102 is decided by the President based on the binding advice of the Election Commission, not the Union Cabinet.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Governor in disqualification of state legislators:
1. In the 2017 Delhi High Court judgment regarding the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries, the court held that the mere designation of a post as a Parliamentary Secretary does not automatically exempt it from the purview of the office of profit disqualification.
2. The Office of Profit is not defined in the Constitution of India, though the term appears in Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) regarding the disqualification of members of the legislature.
3. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, serves as the primary legislative framework that outlines the conditions under which a person can be disqualified from being chosen as, or for being, a member of either House of Parliament or State Legislature.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the 2017 Delhi High Court ruling (AAP Parliamentary Secretaries case) clarified that the nature of the duties, not just the title, determines an office of profit. Statement 2 is correct because the Constitution mentions 'office of profit' in Articles 102 and 191 without providing a definition, leaving it to judicial interpretation and legislative enactment. Statement 3 is correct as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides the statutory mechanism for disqualification, complementing the constitutional provisions by specifying grounds and procedures for such disqualification.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of the 'pecuniary gain' test:
1. The 1959 Act was amended in 2006 to include the National Advisory Council under the schedule of exempted offices, which the Election Commission subsequently declared as an office of profit in its 2007 report.
2. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the disqualification of candidates holding offices of profit, and the Supreme Court in the 1972 Amarinder Singh case held that such disqualification applies to local municipal bodies as well.
3. Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution governs disqualification for State Legislatures, and the 42nd Amendment added a specific clause defining 'pecuniary gain' as any payment exceeding five thousand rupees per annum.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the 2006 amendment to the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, was challenged, but the Election Commission did not declare the National Advisory Council an office of profit in 2007; rather, the controversy led to Sonia Gandhi's resignation. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not define 'office of profit' for local bodies, and there is no 1972 Amarinder Singh case establishing this precedent. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Constitution does not define 'office of profit' or 'pecuniary gain,' and the 42nd Amendment did not introduce any such monetary threshold.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial reviewability of the President's decision on disqualification:
1. The Supreme Court in the K.B. Kunjumon v. H.K. Sivan (2003) case reiterated that the President's decision under Article 103 is subject to judicial review on the grounds of mala fides or violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, introduced a ceiling on the size of the Council of Ministers, but the determination of whether a specific position constitutes an office of profit remains subject to judicial scrutiny.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists various offices under the Government of India or the Government of any State that do not disqualify their holders for being chosen as, or for being, a member of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court has consistently held that while the President acts on the Election Commission's opinion under Article 103, the decision is not immune to judicial review if it suffers from mala fides or procedural impropriety. Statement 2 is correct because the 91st Amendment Act (2003) limited the Council of Ministers to 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha, yet the judiciary retains the power to interpret whether a specific office held by a legislator constitutes an 'office of profit' under Article 102(1)(a). Statement 3 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a statutory list of exemptions for various offices, ensuring that holders of these specific positions are not disqualified from parliamentary membership.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Governor in disqualification of state legislators:
1. Under Article 192(2), the Governor is required to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission of India before giving a decision on the disqualification of a legislator and shall act according to such opinion.
2. The Supreme Court in the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case clarified that for an office to be an office of profit, it is not necessary that there must be an actual profit received, but rather the potential for pecuniary gain is sufficient.
3. Article 192 of the Constitution provides that if any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 192(2) mandates the Governor to seek and act according to the Election Commission's opinion, ensuring a non-partisan process. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the 'pecuniary gain' test focuses on the nature of the office rather than the actual receipt of money. Statement 3 is correct as Article 192 serves as the constitutional mechanism empowering the Governor to adjudicate disqualification matters under Article 191, following the prescribed advisory process.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of the 'pecuniary gain' test:
1. In the 1964 case of Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa, the Supreme Court identified that the power of the government to appoint and remove a person is a key factor in determining an office of profit.
2. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution disqualifies a person from being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State.
3. The Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment clarified that for an office to be an office of profit, it is not necessary that the person actually receives remuneration, provided the office is capable of yielding a profit.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Ravanna Subanna (1964) established that the power to appoint and remove is a crucial test for determining an office of profit. Statement 2 is correct because Article 102(1)(a) explicitly mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit under the Central or State governments, aimed at ensuring legislative independence. Statement 3 is correct as the Jaya Bachchan (2006) ruling clarified that 'profit' refers to the potential for pecuniary gain rather than the actual receipt of remuneration, meaning the mere capacity of the office to yield profit suffices for disqualification.
Consider the following statements regarding Impact of holding chairmanship of statutory bodies on legislative membership:
1. The Supreme Court of India in the Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) case held that the power to appoint and remove the holder of an office is a significant factor in determining whether the office is under the control of the government.
2. The disqualification provisions under Article 191(1)(a) for State Legislatures were amended by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, to include the chairmanship of public sector undertakings as a non-disqualifying office.
3. The Supreme Court in the 1964 Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal case defined the test for an office of profit as the receipt of a monthly salary exceeding the threshold set by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) established that the power to appoint, remove, and control the remuneration of an office holder is a key determinant of an office of profit. Statement 2 is incorrect because the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, limited the size of the Council of Ministers and did not amend Article 191(1)(a) to create a blanket exemption for public sector undertakings. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal (1964) held that the test for an office of profit is whether the government has the power to appoint and dismiss the holder, not the receipt of a specific salary threshold under the Sixth Schedule.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'office' and 'employment' in legal precedents:
1. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not define the term 'office of profit', leaving its interpretation to judicial precedents established by the Supreme Court of India.
2. In the 1953 judgment of Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa, the court held that an office of profit involves an employment with fees or salary attached, distinct from a mere honorary position.
3. The 1960 case of Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus established that any position under a state-owned corporation constitutes an office of profit, provided the individual receives a monthly honorarium exceeding five hundred rupees.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Constitution and the RPA, 1951, do not define 'office of profit', leaving it to judicial interpretation. Statement 2 is correct because the 1953 Ravanna Subanna case established that an office involves a position with a salary or fees, distinguishing it from honorary roles. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1960 Gurushanthappa case did not set a specific monetary threshold of five hundred rupees; instead, it laid down a five-fold test focusing on factors like the power of appointment, dismissal, and control by the government to determine if a position is under the state.
Consider the following statements regarding Retrospective validation of offices by legislative amendments:
1. Article 191(1)(a) allows the Governor of a state to issue ordinances for the retrospective validation of offices of profit held by members of the Legislative Council, provided the President concurs.
2. The 1959 Act was modeled after the British House of Commons Disqualification Act of 1957, and it prohibits the inclusion of any office involving a monthly honorarium exceeding five thousand rupees.
3. The Constitution (Ninety-First Amendment) Act, 2003, introduced the specific definition of 'office of profit' in Article 102, which serves as the basis for legislative amendments passed by state assemblies.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 191(1)(a) does not empower the Governor to validate offices of profit via ordinances; such exemptions must be enacted through legislation by the State Legislature. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, does not contain a monetary threshold of five thousand rupees for defining an office of profit. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Constitution does not provide a specific definition of 'office of profit'; its interpretation is derived from judicial precedents, and the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, focused on limiting the size of the Council of Ministers rather than defining this term.
Consider the following statements regarding Presidential power to seek Election Commission opinion:
1. The Election Commission of India exercises original jurisdiction under Article 102(1)(a) to disqualify a member of Parliament, and its decision is subject to a mandatory review by the Supreme Court within 30 days of the notification.
2. Article 103 of the Constitution provides that if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President.
3. The President acts in accordance with the opinion of the Election Commission when deciding whether a member of Parliament has incurred disqualification under the Office of Profit criteria.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as Article 103 mandates that the President decides on disqualification issues under Article 102(1), while Statement 3 is correct because the President is constitutionally bound to act according to the Election Commission's opinion in such matters. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Election Commission does not exercise original jurisdiction to disqualify a member; it merely provides an advisory opinion to the President, and there is no constitutional provision for a mandatory 30-day Supreme Court review of the President's decision.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial reviewability of the President's decision on disqualification:
1. In the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that for an office to be an office of profit, it is not necessary that the person actually receives remuneration, provided the office carries the potential for profit.
2. The Supreme Court in the Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India (1965) case held that the President is bound to act according to the opinion of the Election Commission under Article 103.
3. Article 103 of the Constitution provides that the decision of the President on questions as to disqualification of members of Parliament shall be final after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the SC in Jaya Bachchan (2006) ruled that 'profit' connotes the potential for pecuniary gain, not actual receipt. Statement 2 is correct because the SC in Brundaban Nayak (1965) established that the President must seek and is bound by the Election Commission's opinion under Article 103. Statement 3 is correct as Article 103 explicitly mandates that the President's decision on disqualification, following the ECI's opinion, is final and not subject to direct challenge.
Consider the following statements regarding Separation of powers doctrine in the context of office of profit:
1. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution prevents a person from holding an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.
2. The Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment clarified that the test for determining an office of profit involves evaluating whether the government has the power to appoint, remove, or remunerate the holder of the office.
3. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976 introduced the specific term 'office of profit' into the original text of Article 102 to strengthen the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit unless exempted by Parliament, ensuring legislative independence. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the 'office of profit' test focuses on the power of the executive to appoint, remove, or remunerate the holder, regardless of whether the remuneration is actually received. Statement 3 is incorrect because the term 'office of profit' was present in the original Constitution under Articles 102 and 191, and was not introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Judicial interpretation of the 'pecuniary gain' test:
1. In the 1954 case of Maulana Abdul Shakir v. Election Tribunal, the Supreme Court established that the payment of a monthly salary is not a prerequisite for an office to be classified as an office of profit.
2. The Supreme Court in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) observed that the 'pecuniary gain' test is not the only criterion, as the nature of the office and the influence it carries also hold significant weight.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices that do not disqualify their holders from being members of Parliament, thereby creating statutory exceptions to the office of profit rule.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Maulana Abdul Shakir (1958) clarified that an office of profit exists if it carries potential for profit, regardless of whether a salary is actually drawn. Statement 2 is correct because in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001), the Court emphasized that the 'pecuniary gain' test is not exhaustive, and the office's nature, influence, and the power of appointment/removal are critical factors in determining disqualification. Statement 3 is correct because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly lists various offices that are exempted from the disqualification criteria, providing a statutory framework to balance legislative duties with public service roles.
Consider the following statements regarding Criteria for determining 'influence' and 'control' over an office:
1. The Joint Committee on Offices of Profit was first constituted in the Second Lok Sabha in 1959 to examine the composition and character of various committees and bodies.
2. Section 3 of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, includes specific exemptions for offices held by ministers of state or deputy ministers.
3. In the 1964 case of Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal, the Supreme Court identified the power to appoint and remove as a key indicator of government control over an office.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit was indeed established in 1959 to scrutinize the composition of bodies where MPs hold positions. Statement 2 is correct because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly exempts offices held by Ministers, Ministers of State, and Deputy Ministers from disqualification. Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Guru Gobinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal (1964) established that the power to appoint and remove an individual is a decisive test for determining if an office is under the government's control.
Consider the following statements regarding Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) interpretation of profit:
1. The 2001 Shibu Soren judgment aligned with the 1964 Ravanna Subanna case, which defined profit as any form of remuneration that exceeds the basic minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act of 1948.
2. In the Shibu Soren case, the bench emphasized that the power of the government to appoint or remove the holder of an office remains a significant factor in determining the existence of an office of profit.
3. The Supreme Court in the 2001 case relied on the definition of 'office' provided in the Representation of the People Act of 1951, which categorizes all government-funded advisory roles as offices of profit.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) reaffirmed that the power of the government to appoint, control, and remove an individual is a crucial test for determining an 'office of profit.' Statement 1 is incorrect because the court did not link 'profit' to the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, but rather focused on whether the office carries some pecuniary gain or material advantage. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not provide a specific definition of 'office of profit,' and the court clarified that the term is not defined in the Constitution or the Act, leaving it to judicial interpretation based on the nature of the office.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of office of profit to ministerial positions:
1. Under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, a minister who is disqualified for holding an office of profit loses their seat in the House, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha holds the final power to determine the date of such disqualification.
2. The concept of office of profit originates from the British Parliamentary tradition, and the Indian Constitution incorporates this principle via the Government of India Act, 1919, which prevents ministers from drawing dual salaries from the consolidated fund.
3. The Office of Profit Committee, established in 1954, provides recommendations to the Union Cabinet, and its reports are binding on the President when deciding on the disqualification of members holding positions in public sector undertakings.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because disqualification for an office of profit is governed by Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), not the Tenth Schedule (which deals with defection), and the President/Governor decides such disqualification based on the Election Commission's opinion. Statement 2 is incorrect because while the concept is British in origin, the Constitution does not derive it from the Government of India Act, 1919, but rather establishes it to ensure the independence of the legislature from the executive. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit merely makes recommendations to Parliament regarding exemptions, and its reports are not binding on the President, who acts on the Election Commission's advice regarding disqualification.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of office of profit to ministerial positions:
1. The Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment established that the receipt of a monthly honorarium by a member of a statutory body constitutes a pecuniary gain, and the Supreme Court affirmed that ministerial positions are subject to judicial review under Article 32.
2. Article 191(1)(a) mirrors the disqualification criteria for State Legislatures, and the President of India acts on the advice of the Supreme Court when determining if a minister holds an office of profit under the state government.
3. The Election Commission of India possesses the primary authority to declare an office as exempt from disqualification, a power exercised through the Representation of the People Act, 1951, during the 1974 amendment process.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because while Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) defined 'pecuniary gain' as the test for an office of profit, ministerial positions are specifically exempted from disqualification under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act. Statement 2 is incorrect because, under Article 103, the President decides on disqualification questions based on the opinion of the Election Commission, not the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is incorrect because the power to exempt offices from disqualification lies with the Parliament through legislation, not the Election Commission, and the 1974 amendment did not grant the Commission such authority.
Consider the following statements regarding Role of the Election Commission in disqualification proceedings:
1. The Supreme Court in the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case clarified that the term 'office of profit' refers to a position capable of yielding pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives the remuneration.
2. Article 103 of the Constitution provides that the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission before deciding on the disqualification of a Member of Parliament.
3. Under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person is disqualified if they have a subsisting contract with the appropriate government for the supply of goods or execution of works.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan (2006) established that the 'profit' test is based on the potential to receive remuneration rather than actual receipt. Statement 2 is correct under Article 103, which mandates that the President must seek and act according to the Election Commission's opinion when deciding on the disqualification of an MP. Statement 3 is correct because Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, explicitly disqualifies individuals from being chosen as or being a member of either House of Parliament if they have a subsisting contract with the government for the supply of goods or execution of works.
Consider the following statements regarding Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) interpretation of profit:
1. The Supreme Court observed that the core test for an office of profit involves evaluating whether the holder receives pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the payment is termed as salary, honorarium, or sitting fee.
2. In the 2001 judgment of Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay, the Supreme Court held that the term 'profit' implies an amount of money over and above what is necessary to meet the actual expenses of maintaining an office.
3. The 2001 ruling clarified that the presence of profit is determined by the substance of the arrangement rather than the mere nomenclature used in the appointment letter or statute.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
In Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001), the Supreme Court established that the 'office of profit' test is functional rather than formal, focusing on whether the holder gains pecuniary advantage beyond mere reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. The court clarified that the nomenclature of the payment-whether labeled as salary, honorarium, or sitting fee-is irrelevant; the substance of the arrangement determines if the office is one of profit. All three statements are correct as they accurately reflect the Court's emphasis on the substance over form and the definition of profit as a net gain exceeding the costs of maintaining the office.
Consider the following statements regarding Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) ruling on remuneration:
1. The Supreme Court judgment in 2006 relied on the interpretation that the term 'office of profit' is defined in Article 102 of the Constitution, which covers any position where the holder receives travel allowances for official duties.
2. In the Jaya Bachchan case, the court determined that the position of Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council is an office of profit because it involves the exercise of executive powers delegated by the Governor.
3. The Election Commission of India recommended the disqualification of Jaya Bachchan in 2006 based on the principle that holding a position in a state-level body automatically constitutes a conflict of interest under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
All three statements are incorrect because the Constitution does not define 'office of profit,' and the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) clarified that the test is whether the office is capable of yielding profit or pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually receives it. Statement 1 is false as the Constitution provides no definition, and travel allowances for official duties do not constitute 'profit.' Statement 2 is false because the court ruled the position was an office of profit due to the potential for remuneration and perks, not specifically because of delegated executive powers. Statement 3 is false as the Election Commission recommended disqualification based on the 'pecuniary gain' test under Article 102(1)(a), not because of a general conflict of interest principle under the Representation of the People Act.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between remunerative and non-remunerative offices:
1. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution prevents a person from holding an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.
2. The Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment clarified that the presence of pecuniary gain is not the only test for determining an office of profit under Article 102(1)(a).
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices that do not disqualify a person from being chosen as, or for being, a member of Parliament.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit unless exempted by Parliament. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) ruled that the 'material test' is whether the office is capable of yielding profit, even if the holder chooses not to receive remuneration. Statement 3 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly lists various offices that are exempted from the disqualification criteria, ensuring members can hold specific positions without losing their parliamentary seat.
Consider the following statements regarding Presidential power to seek Election Commission opinion:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a list of offices that do not disqualify their holders from being chosen as, or for being, a member of either House of Parliament.
2. The Supreme Court in the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case clarified that for an office to be an 'office of profit', it is not necessary that there must be an actual profit received, but rather that the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain.
3. The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, limited the size of the Council of Ministers to 15 percent of the total number of members of the House of the People, which indirectly impacts the scope of offices considered to be holding an office of profit.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly exempts certain offices from disqualification to prevent unnecessary legislative vacancies. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) ruled that the 'pecuniary gain' test focuses on the office's potential to yield profit, regardless of whether the holder actually receives any remuneration. Statement 3 is correct because the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, by capping the Council of Ministers at 15% of the Lok Sabha's strength, effectively restricts the number of ministerial positions that are exempt from 'office of profit' disqualification, thereby narrowing the scope of permissible political appointments.
Consider the following statements regarding Exemption criteria via the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, was enacted to declare that certain offices of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State shall not disqualify their holders for being chosen as, or for being, a member of either House of Parliament.
2. The 1959 Act provides for the automatic disqualification of any member holding an office in a statutory body unless that body receives less than 50 percent of its annual funding from the Consolidated Fund of India.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, establishes the Election Commission as the primary authority to determine the pecuniary value of an office, which is then reviewed by the Supreme Court under Article 103.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the 1959 Act serves to exempt specific offices from the disqualification criteria under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Act does not prescribe a 50 percent funding threshold for automatic disqualification; rather, it provides a list of offices that are explicitly exempted. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Election Commission does not determine the pecuniary value of an office; under Article 103, the President's decision on disqualification is final, and the term 'office of profit' is interpreted through judicial precedents rather than a specific pecuniary valuation set by the Election Commission.
Consider the following statements regarding Conflict of interest vs. office of profit doctrine:
1. The Election Commission of India possesses the inherent authority under Article 324 to disqualify a sitting legislator for holding an office of profit without referring the matter to the President or the Governor for a formal opinion.
2. The concept of conflict of interest in Indian parliamentary procedure is derived from the British House of Commons practice, which was formally incorporated into the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985.
3. The Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) judgment clarified that the presence of pecuniary gain is the primary test for an office of profit, and the Supreme Court established that the definition of such an office is codified in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because, under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), the power to disqualify a legislator for holding an office of profit rests with the President or Governor, who must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission, which is binding. Statement 2 is incorrect as the concept of conflict of interest is a matter of parliamentary ethics and conventions, not explicitly defined or incorporated into the Tenth Schedule, which exclusively deals with disqualification on grounds of defection. Statement 3 is incorrect because, while the Jaya Bachchan case emphasized that the test is whether the office is capable of yielding profit (not actual receipt), the term 'office of profit' is not defined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or the Constitution itself, but is interpreted through judicial precedents.
Consider the following statements regarding Exemption criteria via the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, incorporates the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit, which serves as a permanent constitutional body tasked with auditing the financial independence of government-appointed posts.
2. The definition of an office of profit under the 1959 Act includes any position that carries a monthly remuneration exceeding the salary of a Cabinet Minister, as determined by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954.
3. Article 102 of the Constitution, as supplemented by the 1959 Act, provides that an office held in a public sector undertaking is exempt from disqualification if the member does not draw a daily sitting allowance for attending board meetings.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit is a parliamentary committee, not a constitutional body, and it does not audit financial independence. Statement 2 is incorrect as the 1959 Act does not define 'office of profit' based on a salary threshold exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister; the term remains undefined in the Constitution and the Act, relying instead on judicial interpretation. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1959 Act provides a schedule of specific offices exempt from disqualification, but it does not contain a blanket exemption for public sector undertakings based on the absence of a daily sitting allowance.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between 'office' and 'employment' in legal precedents:
1. The Election Commission of India possesses the final authority to define an office of profit under Article 102, and its decisions regarding disqualification are binding on the President since the 1976 amendment.
2. The 1950 Constitution of India introduced the concept of office of profit to regulate ministerial appointments, and the 42nd Amendment Act added the specific criteria for disqualification of members.
3. In the 1964 case of Maulana Abdul Shakir v. Rikhab Chand, the Supreme Court identified five tests to determine an office of profit, including the power of appointment and the power of dismissal.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 3 is correct as the Supreme Court in Maulana Abdul Shakir v. Rikhab Chand (1964) established key tests, including appointment, dismissal, and remuneration, to define an office of profit. Statement 1 is incorrect because, under Article 103, the President decides on disqualification after obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission, which is binding, but the Commission does not define the office itself. Statement 2 is incorrect because the concept of 'office of profit' was present in the original 1950 Constitution, not introduced by the 42nd Amendment, and the criteria for disqualification are derived from judicial interpretation rather than a specific amendment.
Consider the following statements regarding Conflict of interest vs. office of profit doctrine:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, lists several offices under the Government of India or the Government of any State which do not disqualify the holders for being chosen as, or for being, members of Parliament.
2. Conflict of interest regulations for Union Ministers are outlined in the Conduct of Business Rules, 1961, which provide that a Minister is disqualified from holding office if they maintain any financial interest in a private corporation that receives government contracts.
3. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India disqualifies a person from being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a statutory list of offices exempted from disqualification to ensure the separation of legislature and executive. Statement 3 is correct because Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit, subject to the exceptions created by Parliament. Statement 2 is incorrect because there is no such specific provision in the Conduct of Business Rules, 1961, that automatically disqualifies a Minister for holding financial interests in private corporations; instead, Ministers are governed by a voluntary Code of Conduct requiring them to disclose assets and sever connections with businesses to avoid conflicts of interest.
Consider the following statements regarding Retrospective validation of offices by legislative amendments:
1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, has been amended multiple times to include specific offices within the exempted category to protect sitting members.
2. The Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) clarified that the pecuniary gain is not the sole test for determining an office of profit, but the nature of the office remains the primary consideration.
3. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, contains the original list of exempted offices, which was later moved to the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, following the recommendation of the First Administrative Reforms Commission.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, has been frequently amended to retrospectively exempt various posts to save legislators from disqualification. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) established that the 'test' is whether the office is capable of yielding profit or pecuniary gain, regardless of whether the holder actually received it. Statement 3 is incorrect because the 1959 Act was not a result of the First ARC; rather, it was enacted to consolidate the list of exempted offices that were previously scattered across various statutes and constitutional provisions.
Consider the following statements regarding Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) ruling on remuneration:
1. Following the 2006 ruling, the Parliament amended the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act to include the position of Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council in the list of exempted offices.
2. The Supreme Court observed in the 2006 verdict that the intent of the legislature in enacting the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act was to ensure that members of the legislature remain independent of the executive branch of the State Government.
3. The legal dispute in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) centered on whether the receipt of a sitting fee, as opposed to a fixed salary, satisfies the criteria for disqualification under the office of profit doctrine.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act applies only to the Union Parliament, whereas the position in question was a state-level office, and the exemption was sought through state legislation, not a federal amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court ruled that the test for an office of profit is the potential for profit, not the actual receipt of remuneration or the intent of the legislature regarding executive independence. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court clarified that the 'pecuniary gain' test is satisfied if the office carries the capacity to generate profit, regardless of whether the holder actually receives a salary or a sitting fee.
Consider the following statements regarding Disqualification process under the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
1. In the Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) case, the Supreme Court clarified that the pecuniary gain is not the sole test for determining an office of profit, emphasizing the nature of the influence and control exercised by the executive.
2. Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, addresses disqualification arising from government contracts, which is distinct from the office of profit provisions governed by Article 102 and Article 191.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, exempts certain offices, such as the office of a Minister of State or Deputy Minister, from the purview of disqualification under the office of profit criteria.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct.
Statement 1 is correct as the SC in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006) held that the test is whether the office is capable of yielding profit, regardless of whether the holder actually receives it, focusing on the nature of the appointment. Statement 2 is correct because Section 9A of the RPA, 1951, specifically disqualifies individuals for subsisting government contracts, whereas Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution deal with holding an 'office of profit' under the government. Statement 3 is correct as the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, provides a statutory list of offices that do not attract disqualification, including ministerial positions, to prevent the executive from exerting undue influence over the legislature.
Consider the following statements regarding Applicability of office of profit to ministerial positions:
1. Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that a person shall be disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder.
2. The 1959 Act was amended in 2006 to include the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, and this legislative action was upheld by the Delhi High Court as a valid exercise of parliamentary privilege under Article 105.
3. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, exempts the offices of Minister of State, Deputy Minister, and Parliamentary Secretary from the purview of disqualification under the office of profit provisions.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct as Article 102(1)(a) mandates disqualification for holding an office of profit unless exempted by Parliament. Statement 3 is correct because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, explicitly exempts ministerial and parliamentary secretary roles to ensure the executive remains accountable to the legislature. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while the 2006 amendment sought to exempt the National Advisory Council chairpersonship, the Delhi High Court did not uphold it as a matter of parliamentary privilege under Article 105; rather, the issue was challenged on grounds of conflict of interest and the legislative intent behind the exemption.
Consider the following statements regarding Distinction between remunerative and non-remunerative offices:
1. The 1959 Act includes provisions for the disqualification of members holding ministerial positions, and the Election Commission of India exercises the power to exempt specific offices under the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court in the 1964 Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus case established that the power of the government to appoint and remove an individual is a primary factor in determining if an office is held under the government.
3. Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution refers to the disqualification of members of State Legislatures, and the President of India serves as the final authority to decide on such disqualifications based on the advice of the State Governor.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect.
Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in Gurushanthappa v. Abdul Khuddus (1964) established the 'five-test' criteria, emphasizing the government's power to appoint and remove as a key determinant for an office of profit. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, exempts certain offices rather than disqualifying ministers, and the power to exempt offices lies with the Parliament, not the Election Commission. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 192, the Governor of the state-not the President-is the final authority to decide on the disqualification of a member of the State Legislature, acting on the binding opinion of the Election Commission.