Avani Verma, LLM, Gujarat National Law University
ABSTRACT
“Office of Profit” is a controversial matter. It is so because it imbibes a sense of ambiguity as it is defined nowhere under the Constitution of India. Time and again several MPs and MLAs are disqualified at the discretion of parliament and hence, advocating a system where the executive controls the legislature despite the presence of clear separation of power. There have been made a number of attempts to define “office of profit” by the judiciary.
Such as in Jaya Bachchan v Union of India the court said that "payment of honorarium, in addition to daily allowances like compensatory allowances, rent-free accommodation, and chauffeur-driven car at the state expense, are clearly in the nature of remuneration and a source of pecuniary gain and hence constitute profit."1
Despite judicial pronouncements as well as through some legislature the term “Office of Profit” is not capable of providing an exhaustive list based on some rational classification as to what constitutes the “Office of Profit”? Hence, this paper will analyze this further by examining how the similar provision works in different countries. And what is their procedure to justify disqualification through the office of Profit?
Specifically in India, to discover its true intent, its point of origin will also be studied. That is how the theory of England influenced the Constitutional makers to insert “Office of Profit” under Articles 102 and 191.
Through all of this, the paper will try to justify the fulfillment of the true intent of inserting “Office of Profit” and is there a need to properly define it or not.
