Citation: (2001) 6 SCALE 309 | Date of Decision: 21-09-2001
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) Nos. 242, 245, 246, 261 of 2001 and others
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=300528
Law Points Raised:
1. Whether a person disqualified from contesting elections due to criminal conviction can be appointed as Chief Minister.
2. Scope of Articles 164(1), 164(4), 173, and 191 of the Constitution regarding eligibility to hold ministerial office.
3. Whether suspension of sentence (without suspension of conviction) is sufficient to validate appointment to public office.
4. Interpretation of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 regarding disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that a person convicted of a crime and disqualified under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, cannot be appointed as Chief Minister. The suspension of sentence does not nullify the conviction or the resulting disqualification. The Governor’s discretion in appointing a Chief Minister must conform to constitutional and statutory provisions.
Final Ruling:
The Court declared the appointment of J. Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu unconstitutional and invalid. It held that she was not qualified to hold the post at the time of her appointment due to her conviction, and therefore a writ of quo warranto was issued.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers:
• 2–5: Facts surrounding Ms. Jayalalithaa’s conviction and sentence.
• 6–8: Rejection of her nomination papers and subsequent swearing-in.
• 9–12: Legal and constitutional analysis of Articles 164 and 173 and the Representation of the People Act.