1958 (1) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India holds an office of profit under the Government of India.
2. Whether the Regulations made by the Life Insurance Corporation constitute a law which disqualifies its employees from standing for election within Article 191(1)(e).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India holds an office of profit under the Government of India:
The court examined whether the position held by C. Krishnamurthi as a Junior Inspector under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) constituted an "office of profit under the Government of India" under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Tribunal initially found that the office held by Krishnamurthi did not fall under this category, as the LIC is a statutory corporation created by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and not a government entity.

The court analyzed the historical context, noting that the phrase "office of profit under the Government" traces its origins to English law but lacks direct judicial interpretation. The court considered the degree of control and financial dependency of the LIC on the government, concluding that the LIC, despite being created by a statute and subject to some government control, operates as an autonomous entity. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Maulana Abdul Shukoor v. Rikhab Chand, which distinguished between government departments and statutory bodies with independent legal status.

The court emphasized that the LIC's employees are appointed and remunerated by the Corporation, not directly by the government. The Corporation's financial operations are separate from government revenues, and its employees are not considered civil servants. The court concluded that the LIC is not a government department or an agent of the government, and thus, its employees do not hold an office of profit under the Government of India.

2. Whether the Regulations made by the Life Insurance Corporation constitute a law which disqualifies its employees from standing for election within Article 191(1)(e):
The court examined Regulation 29 of the LIC, which prohibits its employees from taking an active part in politics or standing for election to any legislative body. The key question was whether this regulation imposed a disqualification "by or under any law made by Parliament" as required by Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution.

The court distinguished between disqualifications imposed directly by a law made by Parliament and those imposed under the authority of such a law. It held that a regulation made by the LIC under the authority granted by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, constitutes a law made "under" a law made by Parliament. The court rejected the Tribunal's view that only rules made by the Central Government under Section 48 of the Act would qualify as such a law.

The court further held that Regulation 29, by prohibiting employees from standing for election, effectively imposed a disqualification. The regulation's purpose was to ensure that LIC employees focused on their duties without political distractions, but this prohibition operated as a disqualification under Article 191(1)(e).

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, holding that C. Krishnamurthi was disqualified from standing for election under Article 191(1)(e) due to Regulation 29 of the LIC. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed, and the election of Narayanaswami Naidu and Jayaraj was upheld.