CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001(7) SCC 231

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2001 Legislative Assembly election of Tamil Nadu Jayalalitha nominations were rejected. Her nominations were rejected on the basis of disqualification under Representation of People Act 1951 and Constitution. Her Party won the election by majority. Party member nominate her for CM and she was appointed as CM by the Governor. Petitioner filed a writ challenging her appointment as a CM.

MAJOR ISSUE OF THE CASE

ISSUE NO 1
Whether a person disqualified to be a member of the legislative assembly can be appointed as a CM.

ARGUMENT ON ISSUE NO 1
Respondent Counsel- 164(4) only deals with appointment not with qualification and disqualification, so appointment of Jayalalitha was valid and Constitutional. Petitioner Counsel- Considering the argument of respondent if the argument is taken there will be disaster.

COURT HELD THAT..

Appointment of Jayalalitha is not valid and unconstitutional because she cannot qualify to be a minister. So she cannot continue as a CM anymore.

ISSUE NO 2
Can the appointment made by Governor be questioned in the Court.

ARGUMENT
Respondent Counsel- As she was appointed by Governor. Governor should be asked questioned why did he appoint her if she was disqualified. Petitioner Counsel- Governor cannot be questioned because he earn immunity under Article 361 of Constitution.

COURT HELD THAT.

Governor cannot be made answerable to Court.

ISSUE NO 3
What about the acts, transaction, appointment, decision, legal Works during the tenure of Jayalalitha.

ARGUMENTS.
Petitioner Counsel- As the appointment of CM was invalid so all the acts done her tenure is invalid and unconstitutional.

COURT HELD THAT.

All acts done by her is done with the advice of the counsel of minister so all are valid and constitutional. Disqualification of CM will not effect the acts done during her tenure.

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.