Reasoning Against the Judgment:

The Constitution enlists the disqualification criteria in Article 102(1), which is on the basis of office of profit, unsound mind, undischarged insolvency and citizenship. This article also empowers the Parliament to make law specifying any other criterion for disqualification. In accordance with the constitutional mandate, the Parliament enacted the RPA 1951, mentioning the disqualification criteria in Section 8.

The Supreme Court has given two reasons for its verdict:

First, it held Section 8(4) to be in violation of Article 102, and its corresponding provision for the States, Article 191, of the Constitution. A careful reading of the article 102 clearly empowers the Parliament to define the criterion for disqualification by enacting a law and none of the five clauses of Article 102(1) are attracted to invalidate Section 8(4).

Second, the Supreme Court has held that Parliament had no legislative competence to enact Section 8(4). This reasoning, too, is difficult to accept because Entry 72 to List 1 of the 7th Schedule in the Constitution specifically allows Parliament to legislate on elections to the Parliament or the State legislatures. It is well settled that legislative entries in the Constitution are to be widely construed, and in any case the Parliament has residual power to legislate under Entry 97 to List 1.