Holding

The post of Chairman of the One Man Commission, with remuneration beyond a compensatory allowance, is an office of profit under Article 191, rendering the holder disqualified from contesting elections.

Summary

The Karnataka Government appointed Vatal Nagaraj as Chairman of a One Man Commission to study the problems of Kannadigas in border areas and accorded the post cabinet rank with a budgetary allocation of Rs.5 lakh for expenses. When Nagaraj filed his nomination for the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Returning Officer rejected it on the ground that he held an office of profit, a decision later set aside by the Karnataka High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the commission post constituted an office of profit under Article 191 of the Constitution and Section 100(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, considering the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the post was indeed an office of profit because the remuneration was not merely a compensatory allowance and the Act itself implied the office fell within the disqualification regime. Consequently, the rejection of Nagaraj's nomination was proper, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the elections of the other candidates were upheld. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the position of Chairman of a One Man Commission appointed by the Karnataka Government constitutes an 'office of profit' within the meaning of Article 191 of the Constitution and Section 100(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the remuneration provided to the Chairman is a compensatory allowance or profit, affecting disqualification.
Whether the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 exempts the post from disqualification.
Whether the Returning Officer's rejection of the nomination on the ground of holding an office of profit was legally valid.
Whether the election of the other candidates can be declared void on the basis of the rejected nomination.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 191
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. Section 100(2), s. Section 81

Subjects

office of profitdisqualificationArticle 191Representation of the People ActKarnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Actlegislative council electionone man commissionministerial rank

Judgment

A M.V. RAJASHEKARAN AND ORS.
v.
VATAL NAGARAJ AND ORS.

JANUARY 23, 2002

B [G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Constitution of India

Article 191-Disqualification-A person is disqualified if holding office ..
C of profit under the Government of India/Government of the State unless the ._
'Office' is declared by he State legislature not to disqualifa its holder-
Object of disqualification-Elected member to carry on his duty fearlessly and
without being subjected to any kind of pressure from the Government-
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 : Section 100(2).
D Karna/aka legislative (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956-
Sections 2(a), 2(b) and J(d).

One Man Commission appointed by State Government-Remuneration · •
received cannot be equated with compensatory allowance-Not covered under
E the exemption clause-Hence office of profit at/racting disqualification.

First Respondent had been appointed as One Man Commission by
the Government of Karnataka to study the problems of the Kannadigas
in the Border areas of the State. The Commission was subsequently
accorded the status of Minister of Cabinet rank and a sum "of Rs. 5 lacs
F was provided to meet the expenses of pay and day to day expenditure. In ;
the Karnataka Legislative Council Elections, First Respondent, filed his
nomination paper. On scrutiny of the nomination papers and considering
the objections, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination on the
ground of his holding an office of profit. Aggrieved, First Respondent filed
a Petition alleging that his nomination had been improperly rejected and
G prayed for declaring the election void. High Court allowed the Petition
by holding that the post of Chairman of the Commission, which petitioner
was holding, not being an office much less an office of profit, did not incur
any disqualification under Article 191 and consequently, rejection of his
nomination was improper and directed the Returning Officer to accept
his nomination and proceed with the election in accordance with law.
I-I 412
M.V. RAJASHEKARAN v. VAT AL NAGARAJ 413

Hence this appeal. A
~-
It was contended for the appellants that having regard to the fact
that the Government sanctioned money to defray expenses of the pay and
other allowances of the said Commission, the One Man Commission was
an office of profit. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the
word 'Office' was not defined either in the Constitution or in the B
Representation of Peoples Act and so the test to be applied is whether it
was subsisting, permanent, substantive which had an existence independent
of the person who filled it; and that in the present case, for a limited
purpose a person was appointed to discharge certain obligations which
• came to an end on submission of the report by the person concerned. C
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The very object of providing the disqualifications under
Article 191 of the Constitution is that the person elected to the Legislative
Assembly or Legislative Council should be free to carry on his duty D
fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of Government pressure.
The Court, therefore, is required to find out whether there exists any nexus
.,_ between the duties discharged by the candidate and the Government and
that a conflict is bound to arise between impartial discharge of such duties
in course of his employment with the duties which he is required to
discharge as a member of Legislature. While examining the aforesaid E
question, the Court has to look at the substance and not the form.
1417-B-CI

... 1.2. The question, whether it was an office of profit under the
Government or not, has to be answered depending upon the facts peculiar
to the case in hand with the object of finding out whether in fact the F
Government retain some control over the post which the incumbent was
holding at the time of filing of nomination and was there any profit
attached to the post in question. (420-A-B)

Rabindra Kumar Nayak v. Collector, Mavurbhani, Orissa and Ors., G
(19991 2 SCC 627; Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surano, 11970) 2 SCR
•).. 835; Mahadeo v. Shantibhai and Ors., (19691 2 SCR 422 and Great Western
Rai/wc,y Co. v. Bater, 8 Tax Cases 231, referred to.

Ashok Kumar Bhattacharya v. Ajoy Biswas and Ors., 11985) 1 SCC 151;
Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay and Ors., [2001 J 7 SCC 425 and Mahdukar H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A G.E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani and Ors., [19771 1 sec 10,
relied on. ...
'
2.1. The Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act,
1956 appears to have been enacted as contemplated under Article 191
(l)(a) of the Constitution. The fact that the Office of the Chairman or a
B member of a Committee is brought within the purview of the Act implies
that the office concerned must necessarily be regarded as an office of profit
but for the exclusion under the clause by the Legislature, the holder of
such office could not have been eligible for being chosen as member of

c
the legislature. The object of this provision is to grant exemption to holder
of office of certain description and the provision in substance is that they
will enjoy the exemption even though otherwise they might be regarded
.
as holder of office of profit. [421-A-C-D]

2.2. A conjoint reading of Sections 2(a), 2(b) and 3(d) together with
its proviso of the Act unequivocally supports the conclusion that the post
of Chairman of a Commission is an office of profit and in the instant case,
D
the remuneration which r'!spondent was getting cannot be held to be
compensatory allowance within the ambit of Section 2(b) of the Act.
Therefore, he was holder of an office of profit and consequently the :...
disqualification attached under Article 191 of the Constitution would
apply. [421-E-F)
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3633 of
2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.200 I of the Karnataka
High Court in E.P. No. 2 of 2000.
F WITH

C.A. No. 3714 and 3844 of 2001.

Shanti Bhushan, K.K. Venugopal, S.S. Javali and V.A. Bobde, D.N.N.
Reddy, B.K. Choudhary, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Gargi Khanna, Shashi Kiran
G Shetty, S. Sukumaran, Pathak, Rakesh Babu M.R., G.V. Chandra Shekhar,
Basavraj, S. Mudaliar and P.P. Singh for the appearing parties. ..('"

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. These three appeals are directed against one and the
H same Judgment of the Karnataka High Court. An Election Petition was filed
M.V. RAJASHEKARAN v. VATAL NAGARAJ [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 415

under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging A
the election of the present appellants as Members of the Kamataka Legislative
Council and for declaring the said election as null and void inter alia on the
ground that the nomination of Vatal Nagaraj, respondent No. 1 had been
improperly rejected. Said Vatal Nagaraj was an ex M.L.A. and had been
appointed as a One Man Commission by the Government of Karnataka by
Order dated 18.4.2000 to study the problems of the Kannadigas in the Border B
areas of Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Goa and Tamil Nadu. By a
subsequent order, the Chairman of the Commission was accorded the status
of a Minister of Cabinet rank and thereafter by a Government Order dated
24.5.2000, for defraying the expenses of pay and day to day expenditure of
the Chairman of the Commission, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was provided in the C
Budget estimate for the year 2000-200 I. When election to the Karnataka
Legislative Council was held for filling up 11 vacancies and said Vatal Nagaraj
filed his nomination paper, on an objection being filed for accepting the
nomination, the Returning Officer took up the scrutiny and rejected the
nomination of said Vatal Nagaraj on a finding that he was holding an office
of profit and as such was disqualified from being elected. Said Nagaraj, D
therefore, filed the election petition, alleging inter alia that his nomination
has been improperly rejected within the ambit of Section lOO[l][c] of the
Representation of the People Act and, therefore, the election of all the Members
must be declared void. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court having
come to the conclusion that the post of Chairman of the Commission which E
said Nagaraj was holding, cannot be held to be an office and, therefore, the
Returning Officer illegally rejected the nomination paper of said Shri Nagaraj.
The High Court ultimately held that the position held by Nagaraj, not being
an office much less an office of profit, did not incur any disqualification
under Article 191 of the Constitution and consequently, rejection of his
nomination was ;mproper. The High Court ultimately having allowed the F
election petition and declaring the election of the elected candidates to the
Kamataka Legislative Council to be null and void and further directing the
Returning Officer to accept the nomination of Nagaraj and proceed with the
election in accordance with law, the present appeals have been preferred.
G
Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel
appearing for appellants in two different appeals, and Mr. Javali, learned
· senior counsel appearing for the appellant in third appeal contended, that
having regard to the circumstances under which the post of One Man
Commission was created and an ex M.L.A. was appointed to that post, and
having regard to the fact that the government sanctioned money to defray the H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) I S.C.R.

A expenses of the pay and other allowances of the said Commission, the
conclusion is irresistible that the post of One Man Commission was an office
of profit and, therefore, the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination
of respondent Vatal Nagaraj and the High Court committed error in holding '
that the post does not constitute an office much less an office of profit. In
B support of this contention reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court
in Mahadeo v. Shantibhai & Ors., (1969) 2 SCR 422, Kanta Kathuria v.
Manak Chand Surana, [l 970] 2 SCR 835 and Shibu Soren v. Dayanand
Sahay and Ors., (200I] 7 SCC 425. Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent no. 1, on the other hand contended, that the word
'office' not having been defined either in the Constitution or in the
C Representation of People Act, and the definition given to the said expression
by Justice Rowlatt in the case of Great Western Railway Co. v. Bater 8 Tax
Cases 231 having been accepted by this Court in Kanta Kathuria's case
(supra) the test to be applied is whether it was subsisting, permanent,
substantive which had an existence independent of the person who filled it,
and on the other hand in the present case for a limited purpose a person was
D appointed to discharge certain obligations which came to an end on submission
of the report by the person concerned. According to Mr. Bobde the test of
permanency or substantive does not apply at all. In this view of the matter
the High Court was fully justified in recording the finding that there was no
office much less an office of profit, that was held by respondent no. 1 - Vatal
E Nagaraj, and consequently the order of the rejection of his nomination was
rightly held to be illegal. Mr. Bobde placed strong reliance on the self same
decision of Kanta Kathuria's case on which the counsel for the appellant had
relied upon, as well as the decision in Rabindra Kumar Nayak v. Collector
(1999] 2 SCC 627 wherein the dictum ofRowlatt, J. had been approved. Mr.
Bobde also relied upon the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar
F Bhattacharyya V. Ajay Biswas and Ors, (1985) 1 sec 151, and also the .I

decision in Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar
Dev, [1992) 4 SCC 404. The entire controversy, therefore, centers round the
question whether the creation or constitution of a One Man Commission for
the purpose of holding certain enquiry and appointment of an individual as
G the said Commis~ion, and providing the money necessary for disbursement.
of salary and other allowances of such Commission would make the
Commission an office of profit within the ambit of Article 191 of the
Constitution read with Section 100 (2) of the Representation of People Act,
or it would not constitute an office and as such, the disqualification for being
elected, as engrafted in the Constitution as well as in the Representation of
H People Act will not be attracted. Under Article 191 (l) of the Constitution a
M.V. RAJASHEKARAN v. VATAL NAGARAJ [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 417

person would be disqualified being chosen as and for being a member of the A
Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of State, if he holds any office
, .,,.. of profit under the Government of India or Government of any State other
than the office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify
its holder. In order to attract the aforesaid disqualification, therefore, the
person concerned must hold an office and that office must be an office of
profit under the Government of India or under the Government of any State. B
The very object of providing the disqualification under Article 191 of the
Constitution is that the person elected to the Legislative Assembly or
Legislative Council should be free to carry on his duty fearlessly without

.. being subjected to any kind of governmental pressure. The Court, therefore
c
is required to find out as to whether there exists any nexus between the duties
-.'
discharged by the candidate and the government, and that a conflict is bound
to arise between impartial discharge of such duties in course of his employment
with the duties which he is required to discharge as a member of legislature,
on being elected. While examining the aforesaid question the Court has to
look the substance and not the form and, further it is not necessary that all
factors and tests laid down in various cases must be conjointly present so as D
to constitute the holding of an office of profit under the government. Section
I00 provides the grounds for declaring an election to be void and clause (I)
{c} stipulates that improper rejection of nomination is oae of the ground for
declaring an election to be void. Since nomination of Vatal Nagaraj was
rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that he held an office of E
profit, and as such, was ineligible to contest an election under Article 191(a)
of the Constitution, the sole question for consideration would be whether that
order of rejection was improper as held by the High Court? The answer to
the question would depend upon a finding as to whether the post of One Man
...
Commission constituted by the Government of Karnataka to study the problems
~
of Kannadigas in the border areas is an office of profit or not. As has been F
stated earlier, the expression 'office' has not been defined in the Constitution
but this Court has interpreted the said word in different cases and it would,
therefore, be necessary to examine some of the case laws on the point. In the
case of Mahadeo v. Shantibhai and Ors., [ 1969] 2 SCR 422, the question for
consideration was whether appointment of a person on the panel of lawyers G
by Railway Administration can be held to be an office and is that office is
one for profit? The Court, in that case referred to observation of Lord Wright
of the House of Lords in the case of /(fcmi/lon v. Guest, ( 1942) Appeal Cases
561, where Lord Wright has opined - "The word 'office' is of indefinite
content. Its various meanings cover four columns of the New English

- Dictionary, but I take as the most relevant for purposes of this case the H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A following; a position or place to which certain duti.!s are attached, especially
one of a more or less public character." In the aforesaid case this Court while
considering the appointment of the person concerned and all terms and
conditions came to the conclusion that it is difficult to hold that he held any
office of profit under the Government.

B In Kanta Kathura v. Manak Chand Surana, [1970] 2 SCR 835 a
Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question as to whether a
Special Government Pleader can be held to be an office of profit within the
ambit of Article 191(1) of the Constitution. The majority view expressed
through Justice Sikri held that before a person becomes subject to the
C disqualification in Article 191 (I) there must be an office which exists
independently of his being the holder of the office., and the word 'office'
means an office or employment which was a subsisting, permanent, substantive
position which had an existence independent of the person who filled it,
which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders. In the
majority judgment it was held that it is not necessary to give a wider meaning
D to the word 'office' because if Parliament thinks that a legal practitioner who
is being paid fees in a case by the Government should not be qualified to
stand for an election as a member of Legislative Assembly, it can make that
provision under Article 191(l)(e) of the Constitution. The majority judgment
in the aforesaid case accepted justice Rowlatt's definition of the word 'office'
E in Great Western Railway Co. v. Bater, 8 Tax Cases 231, and applying the
said test to the case came to hold that a Special Government Pleader would
not come within the meaning of Article 191 (I) of the Constitution. The
minority judgment expressed by Hidayatullah, C.J. came to hold that an
office going under the names of' Additional Government Pleader', 'Assistant
Government Pleader', 'Special Government Pleader' will equally be an office
F properly so-called as government is always at liberty to create offices of
special duties, and further held that the said office was an office of profit.
While coming to the said conclusion Their Lordships relied upon the earlier
decision of the Court in Mahadeo's case (supra) as well as Lord Wright's
enunciation of the word 'office' in McMillon's case.

G
In Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay and Ors., [2001] 7 SCC 425, a
Three Judge Bench of this Court considered several earlier judgments of this .
Court and preferred to follow the earlier judgment in Ashok Kumar -~
Bhattacharyya v. Ajay Biswas and Ors., [1985] I SCC 151, wherein the
Court had observed, "for determination of the question whether a person
H holds an office of profit under the Government, each case must be measured
~

M.V. RAJASHEKARAN v. VATAL NAGARAJ [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 419

and judged in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act". In paragraph A
36 the Court held thus-
,,
-- " "The question whether a person holds an office of profit, as already
noticed, is required to be interpreted in a realistic manner having
regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and relevant statutory
B
provisions. While 'a strict and narrow construct.ion' may not be adopted
which may have the effect of 'shutting off many prominent and other
eligible persons to contest the elections' but at the same time 'in
dealing with a statutory provision which imposes a disqualification

- ~
on a citizen it would be unreasonable to take merely a broad and
general view and ignore the essential points'. The approach which
appeals to us to interpret the expression 'office of profit' is that it
c
should be interpreted with the flavour of reality bearing in mind the
object for enactment of Article 102(1)(a), namely, to eliminate or in
any event to reduce the risk of conflict between the duty and interest
amongst members of the legislature by ensuring that the legislature D
does not have persons who receive benefits from the executive and
may thus be amenable to its influence."

In our considered opinion this appears to be the right approach to be
l adopted, particularly when the word 'office' has not been defined in the
Constitution. E

Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel, on the other hand relying upon
~
the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Nayak v. Collector,
Mayurbhanj, Orissa and Ors., [1999] 2 SCC 627, contended that the
; • enunciation of word 'office' by Rowlatt in Great Western Railway Co. v. F
Bater, indicating that it should be subsisting, permanent, substantive position
which had an existence independent from the person who filled it, which
went on and was filled in succession by successive holders, was approved by
this Court in the aforesaid case as well as in Kanta Kathuria 's case by the
Constitution Bench, and therefore, that test should be applied to the case in
G
hand. It may be noticed at this stage, the decision of this Court in Madhukar
G.E Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas Rajani and Ors., [1977] I SCC 70,
~
where this Court held that for deciding the question whether it was an office
of profit under the Government or not it is the circumstances that has to be
looked at and not the form and further all the several factors stated by the
Court, as determinative of the holding of an office under Government, need H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A not be conjointly present. It was held that the practical view, not pedantic
basket of tests, should guide in arriving at a sensible conclusion. A conspectus . .,.,
of the aforesaid decisions of this Court unequivocally therefore, indicate that
the question has to be answered depending upon the facts peculiar to the case
in hand with the object of finding out whether in fact the Government ret~ in
B some control over the post which the incumbent was holding at the time of
filing of nomination and was there any profit attached to the post in question.
The underlined idea obviously is, that it should be free from any pressure
from the Government so that there can be no conflict in discharge of his
independent duties as a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative
C Council. Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
strongly urged that One Man Commission, which Shri Vatal Nagaraj was
holding had been created for a specific tenure which does not last after the
tenure is over and, therefore, if the test of Rowlatt, J. is applied which has
been approved by this Court, it cannot be held to be an offic ~of profit within
the ambit of Article 191(1) of the Constitution. We are, however, unable to
D persuade ourselves to agree with this submission as in our view, taking into
account the order of the Government constituting the Commission, to study
the problems of Kannadigas in the Border areas of Kerala, Maharashtra,
Andhra Pradesh, Goa and Tamil Nadu and to submit a repo~ to the
Government and the appointment of Shri Vatal Nagaraj as a Chairman of that L
E Commission and thereafter conferring the status of the Minister of Cabinet
rank to that post and finally making a Budgetary provision in order to a new
head of account to defray the expenses of pay and day to day expenses of the
Chairman of the Commission it must be held that the office was office of
profit within the ambit of Article 191(1) of the Constitution and the rejection
F of nomination on that score was not improper and High Court committed
error in holding that the nomination had been improperly rejected. Our
aforesaid conclusion is further strengthened by the provisions of the Karnataka
Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956. The said Act had
been enacted by the Karnataka Legislature on 15th January, 1957 declaring
G certain offices not to be the office of profit and stating that the holders
thereof are not ineligible for being chosen as, or for being members of the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Karnataka Legislative Council. Under
Article 191 (I )(a) a person who is disqualified for being chosen as and for
being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, if he
holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government
H of a State other than an office declared by the legislature of the State by law
M.V. RAJASHEKARAN v. VATAL NAGARAJ [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 421

not to disqualify its holder. The aforesaid Karnataka Act appears to have A
been enacted, as contemplated under Article 19l(l)(a) of the Constitution.
., " Section 2(a) defines a 'Committee' to mean any Committee, Commission,
Council, Board or any other body of one or more persons whether statutory
or not, set up by the Government of India or the government of any State.
Section 3 (d) includes the office of the Chairman or Member of a committee,
and therefore, by application of Section 3, the office of the Chairman or
B
member of a Committee would stand excluded from the disqualification
ordinarily. But the proviso to the said clause further indicate that the holder
of any such office is not in receipt of or entitled to, any remuneration other

. than the compensatory allowance. The expression 'compensatory allowance'
has been defined in Section 2(b ). The Chairman or a member of a Committee,
therefore it is in receipt of or is entitled to any remuneration other than
c
compensatory allowance then the removal of disqualification clause would

.. not apply and the person concerned would stand disqualified. The fact that
the office of the Chairman or a member of a Committee is brought within the
purview of this Act implies that the office concerned must necessarily be
regarded as an office of profit, but for the exclusion under the clause by the D
legislature, the holder of such office could not have been eligible for being
chosen as member of the legislature. The object of this provision is to grant
exemption to holders of office of certain description and the provision in
substance is that they will enjoy the exemption even though otherwise they
might be regarded as holders of offices of profit. A conjoint reading of E
Section 2(a), 2(b), and 3(d) together with its proviso of the Karnataka
Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 unequivocally supports
our conclusion earlier that the post of Chairman of a Commission is an office
~ of profit and in the case in hand, in view of the Government order dated
' 1\ 24.5.2000, the remuneration which said Vatal Nagaraj was getting cannot be
• held to be compensatory allowance within the ambit of Section 2(b) of the F
Act, and therefore, he was holder of an office of profit and consequently the
disqualification attached under Article 191 of the Constitution would apply.

Mr. Venugopal is also right in his submission that the second direction
of the High Court is not sustainable in law, but we need not further delve into
G
the question, in view of our finding on the other question .
.·~
....
In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the respondent Vatal Nagaraj was holder of an office of profit
and, therefore, his nomination had rightly been rejected and the High Court
committed error in holding that it was an improper rejection. Necessarily, H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) I S.C.R.

A therefore, the election of the elected candidates could not have been held to
be null and void. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High·
Court of Kamataka and allow these appeal and hold that the appellants were
duly elected to the Kamataka Legislative Council and their election cannot
be held to be null and void.

B S.K.S. Appeals allowed.