Analysis of the Judgment:

♤ The Constitution enlists the disqualification criteria in Article 102(1). This includes criteria like 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:

o It held Section 8(4) to be in violation of Article 102 and Article 191 of the Indian Constitution.

o Second, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament had no legislative competence to enact Section 8(4).

♤ However, the reasoning of the Supreme Court is difficult to accept, since article 102 clearly empowers the Parliament to define the criterion for disqualification by enacting a law. Furthermore, none of the five clauses of Article 102(1) are attracted to invalidate Section 8(4).

♤ Also, Entry 72 to List 1 of the 7th Schedule in the Constitution specifically allows Parliament to legislate on elections to Parliament or the State legislatures. It is well-settled that legislative entries in the Constitution are to be widely construed, and in any case Parliament has residual power to legislate under Entry 97 to List 1 of the 7th schedule.