No Requirement Of Educational Qualification To Contest Polls As MP, MLA: Punjab & Haryana HC Reflects On Dr Rajendra Prasad's "Regret"
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that although 75 years have passed since the adoption of the constitution, to date, the "regret" of India's first President Dr Rajendra Prasad in not mandating a minimum qualification to become Members of the Legislative Assemblies (MLA) or Members of Parliament (MP) or a cabinet minister has not been addressed.
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu referred to Dr Rajendra Prasad's Constituent Assembly Debates delivered on 26th November 1949 where he listed two regrets.
The first regret was with respect to not prescribing any minimum qualification for the lawmakers and the second was, for not being able to draw up the first Constitution of a free India in an Indian language.
"A period of about 75 years has been consumed; but till date, the “first regret” is waiting for amelioration. Even as on today, there is no requirement of any educational qualification for becoming a Cabinet Minister; or Member of Parliament (M.P); and/or Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A) in our country," said the judge.
Background
The Court was hearing a revision plea filed, under Section 397 of CrPC against the impugned order, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class whereby the complaint, filed by the petitioner under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951(RP Act) and Sections 177, 193, 465, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was dismissed at preliminary stage under Section 203 CrPC.
A criminal complaint was filed alleging that the Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rao Narbir Singh had given false information about his educational qualification in the nomination papers.
It was alleged that Singh in 2005 had claimed that he graduated from 'Hindi Vishvavidyalaya Hindi Sahitya Samimelan Praya' in 1986 but later mentioned that he had graduated from "Hindi Vishvavidyalay Allahabad".
In response to the RTI application filed, the University Grants Commission (UGC) in response stated that there was no such university, the petitioner submitted.
The plea stated that in order to allure the general public, the former MLA furnished false information in the affidavits time and again with respect to his graduation from above said university knowing fully well that the university was bogus.
Findings
After hearing the submissions, the Court dismissed the revision plea stating that the magistrate had passed the order, "after due application of judicial mind and the view taken in the matter is quite justified being plausible to the effect that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against respondent for summoning him in the present complaint."
The Court noted that "there is sufficient material, which clearly indicates that respondent was awarded degree in Hindi Madhyama (Visharad) in the year 1988 which is equivalent to B.A as well as the degree of Uttama (Sahitya Ratana) in the year 2001 and that is equivalent to B.A. (Hons.)."
It added that "in such a scenario, there remains no doubt that respondent was having the graduation degrees at the time of filing his nomination papers on 15.01.2005 as well as 25.09.2014.
Justice Sindhu highlighted that even if the degree is obtained from a university which is not recognised by the UGC, "that does not make the respondent liable for making any false declaration in Form No. 26, attached with the nomination form and/or for filing an affidavit in support thereof and to face prosecution in the manner alleged."
"The reason is obvious; as it is not the allegation of petitioner that respondent did not complete his degrees from the Institute and/or that the degrees obtained by him were found to be fake, forged or fabricated by any competent authority established in this regard", he added.
The Court further observed that Singh had enrolled himself with the institute with due care and attention but subsequently, it was found that the institute was not recognized by the UGC, he cannot be held liable or "the same could be a ground to prosecute him for obtaining such degrees."
"To be specific and more precise, if the Institute from where respondent had completed his degrees, is subsequently found to be not recognised by the UGC, then respondent being a genuine student, who completed his education from such Institute, cannot be prosecuted for obtaining the degrees in due course," the judge observed.
"Needless to repeat that till date, in our country, for contesting an election as an MLA or MP, there is no requirement of any educational qualification," the Court said while dismissing the plea.
Title: Harinder Dhingra v. Narbir Singh
Mr. K.S. Khehar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate,
Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate,
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate and Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate, for the respondent.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 233