JAYA BACHCHAN VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan Vs Union of India  AIR (2006) SC 2119  held that for deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not , what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Government of Uttar Pradesh appointed Smt. Jaya Bachchan as Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council (UPFDC) Chairperson of UPFDC was conferred status of cabinet rank.  She was entitled to Honorarium of Rs. 5,000/- per month, daily allowance of Rs. 600/- per day within state and Rs. 750/- outside state, entertainment allowance of Rs. 10,000/-,  staff car with driver, telephone, one P.S., One P.A., and two class IV employees, body guard and night escort, free accommodation, medical treatment, and free accommodation in government circuit houses.

Election Commission was of opinion that office of chairperson of  UPFDC was “office of profit” under Article 102 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.  On the basis of opinion of the Election Commission, Smt. Jaya Bachchan was disqualified from being a member of Rajya Sabha. Smt. Jaya Bachchan filed Writ Petition under Article 32 against disqualification order.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

It was contended by Smt. Jaya Bachchan that conferment of cabinet post was only decorative. She did not receive any remuneration or monetary benefit from the State Government. She did not seek any residential accommodation nor used telephone or medical facilities. She has also not claimed any reimbursement.  She claimed that as she has not received any monetary benefit as such her disqualification was invalid.

The Supreme Court summarized the law on disqualification as under :

“6.Clause (1) (a) of Article 102 provides that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he holds 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. The term holds an office of profit though not defined has been the subject matter of interpretation in several decision of this Court. An office of profit is an office which is capable to yielding a profit or pecuniary gain. Holding an office under the Central or State Government to which some pay, salary, emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowance is attached,  is holding an office of profit. The question whether a person holds an office of profit is required to be interpreted in a realistic manner. Nature of the payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form. Nomenclature is not important. In fact, mere use of the word  “honorarium” cannot take the payment out of the purview of profit, if there is pecuniary gain for the recipient. Payment of honorarium, in addition to daily allowances in the nature of compensatory allowances, rent free accommodation and chauffeur driven car at State expense are clearly in the nature of remuneration and a source of pecuniary gain and hence constitute profit. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not , what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain. If the “Pecuniary gain” is “receivable” in connection with the office then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. If the office carries with it or entitles the holder to any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit for the purposes of Article 102 (1) (a) . This position of law stands settled for over half a century commencing from the decisions of Ravanna Subanna Vs. G. S. Kaggeerappa AIR (1954) SC 653; Shivamurthy Swami Inamdar Vs. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa (1971) 3 SCC 870; Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Rajy Vs. Vvricheria Pradeep Kumar Dev (1992) 4 SCC 404 and Shibu Soren Vs. Dayanand Sahay & Ors (2001) 7 SCC 425.”

The Supreme Concluded that in this case the office in question carried monthly honorarium, entertainment allowance, staff car with driver, telephone etc. These are pecuniary gains. The fact the Smt. Jaya Bachchan did not avail these benefits are not relevant to the issue. The Supreme Coutt dismissed the Writ  Petition and upheld disqualification of Smt. Jaya Bachchan.