Minimum Qualification for Legislators:J&K High Court Dismisses Plea

Source – kashmirobserver.net

Srinagar—The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has “dismissed as withdrawn” a Public Interest Litigation, seeking minimum qualification for members of the state legislature.

A division bench of Chief Justice, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey observed that it’s the prerogative of the state legislature to set the minimum qualification for candidates to contest the elections to the legislature.

The petitioner had sought directions by the court to the government to adopt necessary measures requiring a candidate contesting election to the Indian lok Sabha, state legislature—both assembly and council, and panchayats to have minimum academic qualification.  Among the necessary measures, the petitioner had sought amendment in representation of the People Act-1957. The Act has not provided guidelines in the form of minimum educational qualifications, good character and conduct for the candidate eligible for the state legislature.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of India had observed that the time has come for Parliament to prescribe some minimum qualifications for parliamentarians, legislators as prescribed in other fields.

It had recalled the words of the India’s first President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, in the Constituent Assembly that he would have liked to have some qualifications laid down for members of legislatures.

The petitioner had also sought directions to debar under trials and convicts from contesting the elections.

In a landmark ruling in 2013, the Apex Court had held that chargesheeted members of parliament and legislative house, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal, as was the case before.

In one of the judgements, Justice Kurian Joseph of the apex court wondered whether it would be desirable in a country governed by the rule of law to entrust the executive power with a person who was already in conflict with law.

 “Will any reasonably prudent master leave the keys of his chest with a servant whose integrity is doubted? It may not be altogether irrelevant to note that a person even of doubtful integrity is not appointed in the important organ of the State which interprets law and administers justice, then why to speak of questioned integrity! What to say more, a candidate involved in any criminal case and facing trial, is not appointed in any civil service because of the alleged criminal antecedents, until acquitted,” he asked.