a case review of BR KAPUR V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

1. CASE REVIEW B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu {2001(7) SCC 231} Guided by:- Kartikeya Sir Presented by Praveen Roll – 882041 BBA LLB ( 3rd semester )

2. JUDGES IN THE BENCH Justice S. P. BHARUCHA Justice G. B. PATTANAIK Justice Y. S. SABHARWAL Justice RUMA PAL Justice BRIJESH KUMAR Praveen Kls

4. Jayalalitha, however, had been denied permission to contest the elections.

5. The Election Commission rejected her nomination papers on account of her disqualification under the provisions of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951.

6. Her convictions were under appeal and the High Court, on an application, suspended the sentence of imprisonment, ordering her release on bail.

7. Elected as the leader of the majority party in the State Assembly and now out on bail, the Governor appointed Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister.Praveen Kls

8. MAJOR ISSUES OF THE CASE Praveen Kls

9. 1st ISSUE Whether a person who is disqualified to be a member of the state legislature can be appointed as the Chief Minister under article 164(4)? Praveen Kls

11. Article 163(1)

12. Article 173

14. Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Praveen Kls

16. In particular, section 8(3) of the Act disqualifies any person “convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.” from the date of such conviction to a further period of six years since his/her release.Praveen Kls

17. THE COURT HELD THAT … “A person who is convicted for a criminal offence and is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than 2 years cannot be appointed as the Chief Minister of a state under Article 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such. Hence the appointment of Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was not legal and valid and that she cannot continue to function as the same.” Praveen Kls

18. 2nd ISSUE Whether the appointment of Chief Minister by the Governor is judicially reviewable? Praveen Kls

19. ARGUMENTS The immunity provided to the Governor under article 361 is certainly not extended to an appointee by the Governor. In the present case, when an application for issuance of a writ of quo warranto is being examined , it is not the Governor who is being made amenable to answer the court; it is the respondent appointee, who is duty-bound to satisfy that there has been no illegal usurpation of public office. Praveen Kls

20. THE COURT HELD THAT … “In the present case the Governor need not be made answerable to the court.” Praveen Kls

21. 3rd ISSUE Whether the legal sequitur of the invalidation of the Chief minister’s appointment would be that all acts, decisions, transactions and appointments done by the chief minister would without any legal efficiency be and null and void? Praveen Kls

22. ARGUMENTS Jayalalitha could not have continued to have functioned as Chief Minister and such serious situation would have created a administrative chaos in the state as it would mean that the legal sequitur of the invalidation of the Chief minister’s appointment would be that all acts, decisions, transactions and appointments done by the chief minister would without any legal efficiency be and null and void. Praveen Kls

23. THE COURT HELD THAT … “All acts, decisions, transactions and appointments otherwise legal and valid performed during the acting of Jayalalitha or any of the Council of Ministers or by the government shall not be adversely affected.” Praveen Kls

24. CONCLUSION The Supreme Court in this decision has declared with a view to promote the highest democratic values in the country that a popular mandate cannot override the Constitution. The Court has observed – “the Constitution prevails over the will of the people as expressed through the majority party and the will prevails only if it is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”. Praveen Kls

25. Praveen Kls