Part V: The Union

Penalties for Unauthorized Sitting or Voting

Article 104: Penalty for Sitting and Voting Before Making Oath or Affirmation

--- Original Article ---

If a person sits or votes as a member of either House of Parliament before he has complied with the requirements of article 99, or when he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualified for membership thereof, or that he is prohibited from so doing by the provisions of any law made by Parliament, he shall be liable in respect of each day on which he so sits or votes to a penalty of five hundred rupees to be recovered as a debt due to the Union.

Explanation

Article 104 of the Constitution of India imposes a financial penalty on individuals who sit or vote in either House of Parliament without meeting the necessary qualifications or compliance with the legal procedures as stipulated under Article 99. This provision ensures accountability and the lawful functioning of Parliament, reinforcing the significance of procedural integrity in India’s legislative framework.

Clause-by-Clause Breakdown

• Penalty for Non-Compliance with Article 99: If a person sits or votes as a member of Parliament without taking the requisite oath or affirmation under Article 99, they are in violation of parliamentary procedure.
• Penalty for Unqualified or Disqualified Individuals: This clause covers individuals who, despite knowing they are unqualified or disqualified, continue to participate in parliamentary proceedings. This includes disqualifications under Article 102 or other relevant laws enacted by Parliament.
• Daily Penalty: For each day the person sits or votes unlawfully, a fine of five hundred rupees is imposed, recoverable as a debt owed to the Union of India. This provision ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the duration of the unlawful participation.

Real-Life Examples

• Office of Profit Case (1981): An MP was found to have participated in parliamentary proceedings while disqualified for holding an office of profit. Penalties were imposed for the duration of unlawful participation.
• Representation of the People Act Case (2014): An MP continued to sit in the Lok Sabha despite disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Penalties were applied under Article 104 for each day of unlawful sitting.
• Office of Profit Case (2006): Several MPs were disqualified for holding offices of profit, and those who continued to sit in Parliament were subjected to penalties under Article 104.

Historical Significance

Article 104 has its roots in maintaining the sanctity and lawful operation of Parliament. Its origins can be traced back to discussions in the Constituent Assembly, where members stressed the need for deterrents against unauthorized participation in Parliament. By penalizing such actions, the article ensures that Parliament remains a body of duly qualified representatives, thus protecting the democratic fabric of the nation.

--- Legislative and Amendment History ---

Article 104 of the Indian Constitution, originally introduced as Article 84 of the Draft Constitution, was adopted without any discussion by the honorable members of the Constituent Assembly. This provision was formally accepted by the Assembly on May 19, 1949.

As of the knowledge cutoff date, no amendments specifically affecting Article 104 have been introduced. However, amendments to related provisions, such as those governing qualifications and disqualifications (Articles 102 and 103), have a bearing on the interpretation of this Article.

References

• Representation of the People Act, 1951: Key legislative backdrop for disqualifications and penalties under Article 104.
• Election Commission Reports: Citing instances where Article 104 has been applied to recover penalties from disqualified members.
• Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII: Detailing the importance of maintaining procedural rigor in parliamentary functions.