Part VI: The States

State Legislature: Disqualifications

Article 191: Disqualifications for Membership

--- Original Article ---

(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State:

• (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;
• (b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;
• (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
• (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
• (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.

(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.

Explanations

Article 191 establishes disqualification criteria to uphold a high standard of integrity within state legislatures. These criteria address potential conflicts of interest, mental and financial stability, and loyalty to India, ensuring that only qualified individuals serve in legislative capacities. Importantly, the article exempts ministers from the “office of profit” rule and includes anti-defection measures to protect political stability.

Clause-by-Clause Explanation

Clause (1): Disqualification Grounds for Membership

Office of Profit: Holding an office of profit under the government disqualifies a person from legislative membership, as it may lead to conflicts between executive and legislative responsibilities. Exceptions exist for offices exempted by law.

Mental Fitness: Individuals deemed of unsound mind by a court are disqualified, ensuring members possess the mental competence needed for legislative duties.

Financial Independence: Being an undischarged insolvent disqualifies a person, upholding financial accountability for legislative members.

Loyalty to India: Non-citizens or those pledging allegiance to foreign states are disqualified to ensure undivided loyalty to India.

Additional Disqualification by Law: Parliament may introduce additional disqualification criteria through legislation as needed.

Real-Life Examples

• Office of Profit Example: In 2018, an MLA in Maharashtra was disqualified after accepting a salaried position as chairman of a public corporation, due to the conflict of interest.
• Allegiance Example: An MLA who voluntarily obtained foreign citizenship in 2015 was disqualified for losing Indian citizenship, thus ensuring only citizens hold legislative roles.

Historical Context

Article 191 reflects evolving standards of political integrity. The 1976 and 1978 amendments restored states’ autonomy in matters of office-of-profit disqualifications, while the 1985 Anti-Defection Law (Fifty-Second Amendment) addressed political instability due to party-switching.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) that re-promulgation of ordinances without parliamentary approval is unconstitutional, highlighting the importance of legislative oversight in governance.

In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Defection Law, clarifying the scope of judicial review concerning decisions of the Speaker or Chairman on disqualification.

Debates and Amendments

During the Constituent Assembly debates on Article 167 (later renumbered as Article 191), several amendments were proposed to expand the grounds for disqualification:

Prof. K. T. Shah suggested adding disqualification for individuals with commercial interests in government contracts, arguing that such interests could compromise legislative objectivity. However, the proposal was not adopted.

Mr. Mohd. Tahir proposed disqualifying individuals holding positions in local authorities, intending to minimize conflicts between local and state interests. He also suggested restricting legislative roles to registered voters, ensuring legislators were accountable to the electorate they represent. This proposal was also rejected.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar proposed an amendment to sub-clause (d), disqualifying individuals who have acquired foreign citizenship or acknowledged allegiance to a foreign state, ensuring loyalty to India’s sovereignty. This sparked a discussion on India's Commonwealth status, with Dr. Ambedkar clarifying that adherence to a foreign state does not apply to Commonwealth relations.

The Assembly favored Dr. Ambedkar’s position that stringent disqualification criteria were necessary for safeguarding democratic integrity, adopting Article 167 (now Article 191) in its original form, with modifications to enhance clarity and maintain alignment with India's sovereignty and representative accountability.

References

• The Constitution of India - Article 191, Disqualifications for Membership.
• D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987).
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992).
• Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 167 (Draft Constitution).
• Basu, D.D. "Commentary on the Constitution of India".