NUJS Appellant

Before

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appellate Jurisdiction U/Art.136

And

Advisory Jurisdiction U/Art.143

Civil Appeal No. 244/2022

LENIN BUDDI………………………………………………………………….....APPELLANT 1

MARX BUDDI…………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT 2

v.

UNION OF INDIA…..……………………………………………………………RESPONDENT 1

STATE OF KARNATAKA..…………………………………………………….…RESPONDENT 2

With

Presidential Reference No. 1/2022

IN RE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANTS

-Table of Contents-

MEMORIAL for APPELLANT

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................X

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ XI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................................... XII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... XIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... 1

1. The act of the President in granting sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is

illegal. ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. The President is Not The Competent Authority under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 to grant Sanction for the Prosecution of the Buddi Brothers. ......... 1

1.1.1. The Speaker Of The Lok Sabha Is The Appropriate Sanctioning Authority. ... 1

1.1.2. Alternatively, the sanction granted by the President should be considered

inoperative without an additional sanction from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. ........... 2

1.2. Arguendo, the Presidential Sanction is contrary to Article 74 of the Constitution. 3

1.2.1. The President is Bound By The Advice Of The Council Of Ministers In The

Discharge Of All Executive Functions. ........................................................................... 3

-Table of Contents-


-ii-

1.2.2. The President is bound by Ministerial advice in granting sanctions, despite

the same being a statutory function. ............................................................................... 4

1.3. The Dictum Of The Courts As Regards To The Power Of The Governor To Grant

Sanction Is Inapplicable To The Post Of The President. .................................................... 5

1.4. The Sanction granted by the President is liable to quashed on account of bias. ..... 6

1.4.1. The decision is liable to be set aside if a real likelihood of bias is made out. . 6

1.4.2. The impugned decision is tainted by real likelihood of bias. ........................... 6

2. Proceedings for Impeachment of the President can be Initiated on Grounds of

Corruption .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1. The Present Reference should be Declined by the Hon‟ble Court .......................... 7

2.2. Arguendo, the Reference should be Answered in the Affirmative. ....................... 10

2.2.1. The literal interpretation of article 61 includes corruption as a “violation of

the constitution”............................................................................................................ 10

2.2.2. Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 61 supports corruption being a

ground for impeachment of the President ..................................................................... 17

2.2.3. A purposive interpretation of Article 61 demands that corruption be a ground

for impeachment of the President ................................................................................. 19

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... 21

-Index of Authorities-


-iii-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

A. D. M. Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 ............................................................ 16

A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 .................................................................. 7

A. P. Aggarwal v. Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 205 ....................................... 16

Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645 .................. 13, 14

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 .................................................... 7

Ashok Singh v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, AIR 1992 SC 1756 ................................ 20

B. L. Wadhera v. Union of India, AIR 1998 Del 436 ................................................................ 4

B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SC C33 .................................................................... 17

Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (1989) 4 SCC 664 .................................................. 7

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 770 ........................................................... 18

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 ................................................ 13

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavali, (2007) 6 SCC 81 ....................... 12

Builders Association of India v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1737 ...................................... 18

C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A. M. Battacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457 ................................ 10

Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2000 SC 3060..................................... 12



-iv-

Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 .................. 13

D. N. Banerjee v. P. R. Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58 .............................................................. 18

D. T. C. v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 ..................................................... 11

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104 ..................................... 14

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 ............................................................ 20

DAV College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737 .............................................................. 19

Dr. Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (2) AICLR 59, 64 (P&H) ..................................... 1

E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ....................................................... 11

E. T. Sunup v. C. A. N. S. S. Employees Association, (2004) 8 SCC 683 ¶16 ......................... 10

Fagu Shaw v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 613 ........................................................... 18

Francis Coralie v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 746 ............................................................. 13

G. C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 1655 ............................................................ 16

Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 349 .............................................................. 13

General Manager, ONGC, Shilchar v. ONGC Contractual Worker’s Union, AIR 2008 SCW

3996...................................................................................................................................... 10

Gobardhan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) AWC 1515 ............................................. 13

H. S. Srinivasa Raghuvachar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 1518 ............................... 15



-v-

HH Sripadagalavaru Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 .............. 13

I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861........................................................... 15

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 .............................................................. 16

Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 604 ................................................................ 8

John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902 ....................................................... 11

K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 ¶28 ......................................................... 1

Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 ................................................. 10

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412 .................................................................... 16

Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1 .................................................................... 10

M Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71 ........................................................... 10, 15, 17

M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468 ...................................... 13

M. K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Limited, AIR 1987 SC 1792 .......................................... 13

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 ...................................................... 10

Mohd. Iqbal Ahamed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 CriLJ 633 .......................................... 6

Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, AIR 2004 SC 4179 ................................. 20

Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1087 ...................................... 8

Nar Bahadur Bhandari v. Union of India, 1998 CriLJ 3475 ..................................................... 5



-vi-

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 ......................................... 13

National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Sitaram Mills, AIR 1986 SC 1234 ................................ 15

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 .......................................................... 12

P. A. Kallimani v. State of Karnataka, 1983 CriLJ (NOC) 160 (Kant) ..................................... 7

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), AIR 1998 SC 2120............................................... 2, 3

Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 .................................................................... 20

Province of Assam v. Mahendra Chandra De, AIR 1949 Assam 3 .......................................... 1

R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804 .............................................................. 16

R. J. Singh Ahuluwalia v. State of Delhi, AIR 1971 SC 1552 ................................................... 7

R. K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1769 ...................................................................... 3

R. L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1230 ...................................................... 18

Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184 ¶21 .................................. 10

Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549....................................................... 4

S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 ......................................................... 16

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 .................................................................... 12

S. P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 4 SCC 716 ................................................ 7

S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, AIR 1980 SC 1362 ............................... 17



-vii-

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 .................................................................. 3

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 ............................................................ 17

Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297....................................................... 15

State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, AIR 2000 SC 1296 ........................................................... 10

State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252........................................................... 14

State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, AIR 1997 SC 1390 .............................................................. 20

State of Bombay v. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas, AIR 1952 Bom 468........................................... 13

State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2002) 2 SCC 507.......................................................... 13

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ran Sharma, AIR 1986 SC 847 .................................... 13

State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation, AIR 2006 SC 1846 ................ 12

State of Karnataka v. Ranganath, AIR 1978 SC 215 .............................................................. 15

State of Kerala v. K. Karunakaran, 2003 Crl. L. J. 2225 ...................................................... 2, 3

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) 1 SCC 539 ......................................... 14

State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan, AIR 1986 SC 1466 ........................... 15

State of Maharashtra v. Milind, AIR 2001 SC 303 ................................................................. 18

State Of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249 .................................... 5

State Of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 ................................... 5



-viii-

State of Punjab v. M. L. Puri, AIR 1975 SC 1633 ..................................................................... 7

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 845 .......................................................... 17

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361 ....................................................... 16

State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92 ............................................... 20

State v. Charulatha Joshi, (1999) 4 SCC 65 ............................................................................ 12

State v. Ravinder Singh, 1995 Cri LJ 3428 (Del) ...................................................................... 1

Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 320 ................... 10

Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph, AIR 1996 SC 1271 ............................. 14

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268 ....... 10

Suryanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1967) 2 Andh WR 253 ....................................... 6

T. A. Rajendran v. Governor of Kerala, 1988 CriLJ (Ker) 68 ................................................... 5

T. N. Sheshan, Chief Election Commissioner v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611 ............... 18

Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1989) 3 SCC 709 ............................... 15

TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 255.............................................. 19

U. N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002 ................................................................... 3, 4

Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 2002 SC 3158 .................... 12

Union of India v. Sripati Ranjan, AIR 1975 SC 1755 .............................................................. 4



-ix-

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294 ........................... 12

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 .......................... 10

Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation, AIR 2001 SC 3887 ............................... 16

Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328 ....................................... 20

Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 .............................................. 13

Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1782............................................. 13

Vincent v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990 .......................................................................... 13

Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271 ................................................................... 15

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 20

Treatises

Austin, Granville, “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation”, Oxford University

Press, New Delhi, 2008 .......................................................................................................... 4

Seervai, H. M., “Constitutional Law of India”, 4th

Ed., Vol. 2, Universal Law Publishing Co.,

Delhi, 2008 ............................................................................................................. 5, 9, 14, 19

-Statement of Jurisdiction-


-x-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANTS HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE APPELLANTS IN THE CASE OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 244/2022

FILED BY LENIN BUDDI, MARX BUDDI UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA. PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE 1/2022 WAS MADE BY THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT OF

INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 143 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN

THE PRESENT CASE.

-Statement of Facts-


-xi-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The 2020 General Elections forced the Congress to enter into alliances with regional parties

in order to pull together enough seats to form a coalition government. Babul Gandhi was

sworn in as the Prime Minister while Lenin and Marx Buddi, members of the Karnataka Jana

Sangha, took over two key Ministries in the Cabinet. In the Presidential elections in 2021,

M.M. Jiri, a fierce rival of the Karnataka Jana Sangha and former Chief Minister of

Karnataka, was elected as the President of India.

In 2022, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, R.S. Gowda ordered a Special Investigation Team

of the Karnataka Police to look into allegations of corruption against the Buddi Brothers.

Consequently, sanction for prosecution was sought from the President. The Union Cabinet

analysed the police report and other relevant documents and unanimously recommended

withholding the sanction. However, the President granted sanction against such

recommendation of the Cabinet after consultation with lawyers and constitutional experts.

In the meanwhile, the Union Cabinet released a communiqué that the President had

accumulated an enormous amount of illegal wealth on the basis of a report submitted by a

Special Team of the CBI. Impeachment proceedings were initiated in the Lok Sabha. Writ

petitions filed by appellants seeking to quash the sanction accorded by the President were

dismissed by the Delhi HC. A reference was made by Shri Jiri under Art. 143 asking the

Supreme Court to decide whether proceedings for impeachment of the President under

Article 61 of the Constitution could be initiated on grounds of corruption. Upon approaching

the Supreme Court under Article 136, the Court granted leave while converting the Special

Leave Petition into a Civil Appeal and listed it along with the Presidential Reference.

-Statement of Issues-


-xii-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following questions are presented before the Hon‟ble Court in the instant matter:

1. Whether The Sanction Granted By The President Is In Violation Of Article 74 Of The

Constitution Of India.

2. Whether Proceedings For The Impeachment Of The President Can Be Initiated Under

Article 61 Of The Constitution Of India On The Grounds Of Corruption.

-Summary of Arguments-


-xiii-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The act of the President in granting sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act

is illegal.

The Speaker, not the President, is the sanctioning authority under POCA given that the

Appellants are Members of the Lok Sabha. Alternatively, the President has contravened

Article 74 of the Constitution by granting the sanction in defiance of the ministerial advice.

II. Proceedings for Impeachment of the President can be Initiated on Grounds of

Corruption

Article 61 allows the removal of the President for “violation of the Constitution”. Corruption

violates the Presidential oath under Article 60, the provisions of Articles 14, 19, 21, 38 and

39 as well as principles like Rule of Law and democracy that underlie the Constitution and

are parts of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. therefore, corruption is a “violation of the

Constitution” warranting the removal of the President.

-Arguments Advanced-


-1-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE ACT OF THE PRESIDENT IN GRANTING SANCTION UNDER THE PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT IS ILLEGAL.

It is submitted that the President is not the appropriate authority to grant sanction for the

prosecution of Union Ministers under the POCA. Alternatively, the grant of sanction in the

present matter is in violation of Article 74 of the Constitution.

1.1. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 TO GRANT SANCTION FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THE BUDDI

BROTHERS.

It is submitted that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is the appropriate authority under Section

19, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“POCA”) to sanction prosecution. Alternatively, the

impugned sanction lacks legal effect unless a similar sanction is granted by the Speaker.

1.1.1. The Speaker Of The Lok Sabha Is The Appropriate Sanctioning Authority.

Section 19(1), POCA, mandates the sanction of appropriate authority prior to the initiation of

criminal proceedings against public servants.1 The Supreme Court has held that till a

provision is made by the Parliament in this regard, either the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or the

1 Gokul Chand Dwarkadas Morarka v. King, AIR 1948 PC 82; Monika Marry Hussain v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, 2007 (5) All LJ 219 (All); Ambasa Nagosa Kabadi v. State of Karnataka, (1988) 3 Crimes 304 (Kant);

State v. Ravinder Singh, 1995 Cri LJ 3428 (Del); Dr. Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (2) AICLR 59, 64

(P&H); Md. Quasim Ansari v. State of Bihar, 2005 (1) Pat LJR 526, 529 (Pat); Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of

Bihar, 2005 (3) Pat LJR 422, 425 (Pat); Moti Goel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 (1) All LJ 139; Province of

Assam v. Mahendra Chandra De, AIR 1949 Assam 3, 3; Ram Pukar Singh v. State, AIR 1954 All 223; K.

Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 ¶28



-2-

Speaker of the Lok Sabha (as the case may be) be the authority under Section 19 of the

POCA in respect of Members of Parliament.2

Nothing suggests that the President is the sanctioning authority for Union Ministers. The

same does not flow from the text of POCA as a minister cannot be described as being

“employed in connection with the affairs of the Union” and the President is not competent to

remove a Minister from his office on his own accord.

Every Union Minister is, as per the Constitution, a member of a House of the Parliament.3 In

the present case, both Lenin Buddi and Marx Buddi are members of the Lok Sabha.4

Therefore, the appropriate authority, following the applicable precedents5, is the Speaker.

Hence the sanction granted by the President is invalid for the want of jurisdiction.

1.1.2. Alternatively, the sanction granted by the President should be considered

inoperative without an additional sanction from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Assuming while not conceding that the President may grant sanction in his Executive

capacity, such sanction will be ineffective without the backing of the Speaker. The Ministers,

in their capacities as Members of the Parliament, enjoy protection from prosecution without

2 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), AIR 1998 SC 2120; State of Kerala v. K. Karunakaran, 2003 Crl. L.

J. 2225

3 Article 75(5), Constitution of India

4 Factsheet, ¶1

5 Supra n. 2



-3-

prior sanction of the Speaker. The President cannot strip them of this protection.6 It is hence

submitted that even assuming that the President has the power to grant sanction, such

sanction should be treated as inoperative unless backed by a sanction from the Speaker.

1.2. ARGUENDO, THE PRESIDENTIAL SANCTION IS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 74 OF THE

CONSTITUTION.

Assuming that the President is the appropriate sanctioning authority, it is submitted that the

grant of sanction, in the present case, is in violation of Article 74 of the Constitution.

1.2.1. The President is Bound By The Advice Of The Council Of Ministers In The

Discharge Of All Executive Functions.

The President is, under Article 74, bound by Ministerial advice in the discharge of his

functions. He is neither required nor empowered to act personally without or against the

advice of the Council of Ministers.7 Though the President, like the Crown in United

Kingdom,8 formally heads the Executive, the real powers are vested in the Council of

6 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), AIR 1998 SC 2120; State of Kerala v. K. Karunakaran, 2003 Crl. L.

J. 2225

7 U. N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002 ¶ 8-10; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192

¶ 27, 30, 32; Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1653; R. K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC

1769

8 Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Reports, Vol. VII, 1989, p. 973; Constituent Assembly Debates,

Official Reports, Vol. IV, 1989, p. 734; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918



-4-

Ministers.9 If the President ignores the advice of the Council, it would be tantamount to a

violation of the Constitution,10

and any decision taken by him is liable to be set aside.11

1.2.2. The President is bound by Ministerial advice in granting sanctions, despite the

same being a statutory function.

It is submitted that the requirement to follow ministerial advice is not restricted to

Constitutional functions alone and extends to statutory functions of the President as well.

This is evident from the text of Article 74 which uses the term “functions” without qualifying

it with “Constitutional” or “under the Constitution”.12

It has been repeatedly held that

executive powers, whether vested in the Central Government or in the President, are to be

exercised by the President as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers13

and that the

satisfaction of the President does not mean his „personal satisfaction‟ but the satisfaction of

the President in the Constitutional sense, i.e. the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers14

.

Therefore, it is submitted that statutory origins of the sanctioning power does not negate the

requirement for the President to follow Ministerial advice.

9 Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549; Sanjeevi Naid A. v. State of Madras, AIR 1970 SC

1102

10 Austin, Granville, “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,

2008, p. 138

11 U. N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002

12 S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 ¶250

13 Sanjeevi v. State of Madras, AIR 1970 SC 1102, 1106; B. L. Wadhera v. Union of India, AIR 1998 Del 436

14 Union of India v. Sripati Ranjan, AIR 1975 SC 1755



-5-

1.3. THE DICTUM OF THE COURTS AS REGARDS TO THE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR

TO GRANT SANCTION IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE POST OF THE PRESIDENT.

The Supreme Court has held that the Governor may exercise discretion in sanctioning the

prosecution of ministers.15

However, these decisions are inapplicable to the President.

The Governor has greater discretionary powers than the President, as is clear from the texts of

Articles 74 and 163. It is submitted that the discretionary powers of the Governor are wider

than those of the President, and the omission of the term „discretion‟ in the wording of Article

74 is deliberate.16

Moreover, even the Governor, in his discretionary power, is usually bound

by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in granting sanction.17

The Governor can

exercise this discretion only where the Council of Ministers disables or disentitles itself from

the decision making process18

, by being irrational and basing opinions on irrelevant factors19

or where the State authorises the Governor to grant sanction in his individual capacity.20

Therefore, these decisions cannot be used to hold that the President may use his personal

discretion in granting sanctions under POCA.

15

State Of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249; Nar Bahadur Bhandari v. Union of

India, 1998 CriLJ 3475; T. A. Rajendran v. Governor of Kerala, 1988 CriLJ (Ker) 68; Madhya Pradesh Special

Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 CriLJ 4610

16 Seervai, H. M., “Constitutional Law of India”, 4

th Ed., Vol. 2, Universal Law Publishing Co., Delhi, 2008, p.

2044

17 Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 CriLJ 4610

18 Ibid

19 Supra n. 17

20 State Of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249



-6-

1.4. THE SANCTION GRANTED BY THE PRESIDENT IS LIABLE TO QUASHED ON ACCOUNT

OF BIAS.

1.4.1. The decision is liable to be set aside if a real likelihood of bias is made out.

The authorities under POCA should not be biased on account of political considerations.21

A

decision is liable to be set aside if there existed a real possibility of bias.22

The test of bias is

whether a reasonably intelligent man, fully apprised of all the circumstances, would feel a

serious apprehension of bias. It is submitted that the test is not whether in fact a bias has

affected the judgment.23

1.4.2. The impugned decision is tainted by real likelihood of bias.

In the present matter, the President is a fierce political rival of the Karnataka Jana Sangha, of

which the appellants are members. He stood to gain from the political setback that the

prosecution would bring upon the Appellants. Thus, being an interested party in the matter,24

the President should have recused himself from the matter. The same would have been

21

Mohd. Iqbal Ahamed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 CriLJ 633; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of

Gujarat, (1977) 7 SCC 622; Subba Rao v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1957 AP 414; Suryanarayana v. State of

Andhra Pradesh, (1967) 2 Andh WR 253; P. Sriramulu v. State, AIR 1970 AP 114, 116

22 Dhirendra Krishan v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., 1999 CriLJ 3405

23 Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School, (1993)

IILLJ 549 SC; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Ninag Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, (2000) 1 SCC 182 ¶¶27, 33 and 35;

Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585, 591; Manak Lal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1957 SC 425;

International Airport Authority v. K. D. Bali, (1988) 2 SCC 360

24 Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454; S. P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh,

(1981) 4 SCC 716; Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (1989) 4 SCC 664; State of Uttar Pradesh v.

Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150



-7-

possible as it has been held that a valid grant of sanction may be performed through a

delegate officer and that it is not imperative for the sanctioning authority to review the

sanction personally.25

It may be argued that the President was acting on the recommendation of the Special

Investigation Team. However, the advice of the prosecuting agency is non-binding.26

In this

case the fact that the President disregarded the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to

give effect to the non-binding recommendation of the SIT clearly indicates that personal

interests of the President could have been a pivotal factor in the decision making process.

Given this very likely possibility that the decision of the President was tainted by bias, it is

submitted that the decision is liable to be set aside.

2. PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT CAN BE INITIATED ON

GROUNDS OF CORRUPTION

It is submitted that the present reference should be declined by the Court and in the

alternative; the reference should be answered in the affirmative since Corruption violates the

letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution.

2.1. THE PRESENT REFERENCE SHOULD BE DECLINED BY THE HON’BLE COURT

25

State of Punjab v. M. L. Puri, AIR 1975 SC 1633; R. J. Singh Ahuluwalia v. State of Delhi, AIR 1971 SC

1552

26 P. A. Kallimani v. State of Karnataka, 1983 CriLJ (NOC) 160 (Kant); Arun Kumar Shantilal Purohit v. State

of Gujarat, S Cr App No. 1162/2003



-8-

Article 143 allows the President to seek advice of the Supreme Court on any matter of public

importance.27

It is admitted that the President enjoys sole discretion in determining whether a

question should be referred to the Court.28

However, it is not mandatory for the Court to

render its advice in a reference.29

This is evident from text of Article 143(1) which provides

that “the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion

thereon” (emphasis supplied).30

That is, if the Court decides that it is unadvisable or

impossible to render an opinion, the reference should not be answered.31

The present reference requests the Court to decide whether proceedings for the impeachment

of the President can be initiated on ground of corruption.32

Article 61 of the Constitution

provides for the impeachment of the President for “violation of the Constitution”.33

Therefore, what the reference essentially requests the Court to determine is whether

corruption amounts to a “violation of the Constitution” under Article 61.

27

Article 143 (1), Constitution of India

28 Article 143 (1), Constitution of India; In Re the Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956; In Re Keshav

Singh’s case, AIR 1965 SC 745; In Re the Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478

29 In Re the Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956; In Re the matter of Ram Janmabhoomi, (1993) 1 SCC 642

30 In Re Keshav Singh’s case, AIR 1965 SC 745; In Re the Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956; In Re the

Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478; Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 604; Moti Ram v.

North Eastern Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600

31 In Re the Special Courts Bill, 1978, AIR 1979 SC 478; Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 604;

Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1087; Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 195; In Re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, AIR 1992 SC 522

32 Factsheet,¶ 5

33 Article 61, Constitution of India



-9-

It is submitted that the phrase “violation of the Constitution” of wide import.34

Unlike the

American Constitution which provides specific instances of “violation of the Constitution”35

,

Article 61 employs this broad phrase without defining it or restricting its scope through

examples. Considering this deliberate departure from the American Constitution, it is

submitted that the framers of the Constitution intended to keep the phrase wide for later

interpretation by the Parliament.36

Moreover, the elaborate procedure laid down in Article 61

and the extent of majority required by it in the Parliament are sufficient checks and balances

upon the said power of the Parliament. This delicate balance envisaged by the Constitution

makes the Parliament the sole judge of what amounts to a “violation of the Constitution”.37

Given this, it is respectfully submitted that it will be undesirable for the Hon‟ble Court to

decide whether a particular matter amounts to a “violation of the Constitution” for the

purpose of Article 61, as this will run contrary to the Constitutional scheme of separation of

powers.38

34

Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Reports, Vol. VII, 1989, pp. 1081-1082

35 §4, Article II, Constitution of the United States of America

36 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

37 Article 61, Constitution of India; Seervai, H. M., “Constitutional Law of India”, 4

th Ed., Vol. 2, Universal

Law Publishing Co., Delhi, 2008, p. 2025

38 Article 50, Constitution of India; C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A. M. Battacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457 ¶10;

High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish Kumar Rangarao Patil, (1997) 6 SCC 339; Divine Retreat

Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542; State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, AIR 2000 SC 1296; Ram

Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549; In Re Delhi Laws Act, AIR 1951 SC 332; M Nagaraj v.

Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71; Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1987; Union of

India v. Sankalchand H. Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328; Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union

of India, AIR 1994 SC 268; see generally P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 ¶¶22,

25 and 27; E. T. Sunup v. C. A. N. S. S. Employees Association, (2004) 8 SCC 683 ¶16



-10-

2.2. ARGUENDO, THE REFERENCE SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

It is submitted that if the Court is disposed to render its advice in the present matter,

the reference should be answered to the effect that corruption is a ground for initiation of

proceedings under Article 61

2.2.1. The literal interpretation of article 61 includes corruption as a “violation of

the constitution”

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is to be honoured in its letter and

spirit.39

A “violation of the Constitution”, literally refers to the contravention of an

enumerated provision of the Constitution or greater principles embodied by the Constitution

provisions. It is submitted that corruption by the President would violate both the letter and

spirit of the Constitution of India and hence constitutes a ground for impeachment. In

particular, corruption contravenes the oath entailed in Art. 60, Fundamental Rights under

Articles 14, 19 and 21, Directive Principles of State Policy entailed in Article 38 and 39 as

well as principles of democracy and Rule of Law which have been held to be parts of the

Basic Structure of the Constitution.

2.2.1.1. Corruption violates the Presidential oath prescribed under Art. 60 of the Constitution

39

Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184 ¶21; Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of

Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of

India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 320;

Manilal Singh v. Dr. Borobabu Singh, AIR 1994 SC 502; Union of India v. Association for Democratic

Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363; Pratap

Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2005 SC 2731; Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 980;

Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1; General Manager, ONGC, Shilchar v. ONGC Contractual

Worker’s Union, AIR 2008 SCW 3996



-11-

Article 60 of the Constitution of India requires the President to take an oath in the

prescribed format. Under the said oath, a person, while assuming Presidency, swears to

“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law”. Therefore, corruption by the

President is a direct contravention of this oath by which the Constitution binds the President.

2.2.1.2. Corruption violates Fundamental Rights entailed under Article 14, 19 and Article 21

It is submitted that corruption is a contravention of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

2.2.1.2.1. Corruption violates Article 14 of the Constitution

Article 14 which envisages the Right to equality has been accorded an expansive reading to

include a prohibition against arbitrariness.40

An official act qualifies as arbitrary inter alia if

it is induced by extraneous reasons.41

When an official act is tainted by corruption, the action

is induced by the desire for personal gratification and not by considerations relevant in the

context of the action. Therefore, corruption introduces arbitrariness, the antithesis of equality,

40

M. Chhaganlal v. Greater Bombay Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2009; E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu,

AIR 1974 SC 555; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.

International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628; D. T. C. v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991

SC 101; John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu

and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992

41 Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal And Others, AIR 1990 SC 1402; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.

International Airport Authority of India, 1979 AIR SC 1628; L. I. C. of India v. Consumer Education and

Reseacrh Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811; Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2000 SC 3060;

Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 2002 SC 3158; Padma v. Hiralal Motilal

Desarda, AIR 2002 SC 3252; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavali, (2007) 6 SCC 81;

Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 2007 SC 119; State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers

Organisation, AIR 2006 SC 1846



-12-

into the decision making process. Therefore, corruption has to be seen as a violation of

Article 14 of the Constitution.


It has been held that Article 19 impliedly entails „right to know‟.42

Corruption necessarily

involves concealment of matters of public interest or misinforming the public about true

reasons behind an official act. Thus, corruption is a violation of „right to know‟.


Article 21 guarantees to an individual all rights necessary for dignified human life43

, not mere

animal existence.44

Under this Article, right to water45

, right to shelter46

, right to education47

42

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149; Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 4 SCC 373;

Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal,

(1995) 2 SCC 161; Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306; State v. Charulatha Joshi, (1999) 4

SCC 65; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294; PUCL v. Union of India,

(2003) 4 SCC 399; PUCL v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476

43 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road

Development Corporation Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 1; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180; D. T.

C. v. Mazdoor Congress Union D. T. C., AIR 1991 SC 101 ¶¶223, 234, 259; Consumer Education and Research

Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42

44 Francis Coralie v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 746; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984

SC 802; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086; M. K. Sharma v. Bharat Electronics Limited, AIR

1987 SC 1792; Vincent v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990; Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, AIR

1988 SC 1782

45 Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664; Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board II

v. M. V. Nayadu, (2001) 2 SCC 62

46 Shanthistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630; Gauri Shankar v. Union of India,

(1994) 6 SCC 349; Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444

47 Article 21-A, Constitution of India; Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645



-13-

and several other rights have been read in enjoining the State to act as a welfare State.48

These functions of the State are often prejudiced by corruption. For the numerous rights read

into Article 21 to have any meaning, good governance should be ensured. Thus, good

governance becomes an essential to guarantee dignified human life. Hence “a right to good

governance” should be read into Article 21.49

Thus, corruption violates the right to good

governance, an essential condition for meaningful enjoyment of all other rights related to

dignified human life. Thus, corruption is a “violation of the Constitution”.

2.2.1.3. Corruption violates Directive Principles under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution

Directive Principles of State Policy have been said to be the core and the conscience of the

Constitution50

Despite being not enforceable before a Court of law,51

they are still

48

Article 38, Constitution of India; HH Sripadagalavaru Kesavananda Bharthi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC

1461; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ran Sharma, AIR 1986 SC 847; Sri Srinavasa Theatre v.

Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 999; Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India,

AIR 1995 SC 922; Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC 645

49 Gobardhan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) AWC 1515; State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2002) 2

SCC 507; BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350; M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey

Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468; State of Bombay v. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas, AIR 1952 Bom 468

50 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC

1789; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) 1 SCC 539; Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra

Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178; Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104

51 Article 37, Constitution of India; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461;

Ashwathanarayan Setty, P. M. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC 100; Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR

2000 SC 1650



-14-

Constitutional provisions capable of being violated and it is for the Houses of the Parliament

to decide if a violation of these Principles should be regarded as a ground for impeachment. 52

It is submitted that corruption violates Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution.

2.2.1.3.1. Corruption violates Article 38

Article 38(1) enjoins the State to promote the welfare of the people and requires that “justice,

social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life”.53

Corruption is inherently against the concept of justice. Thus, corruption by the President

would be a gross contravention of Article 38(1) and hence a „violation of the Constitution‟.

2.2.1.3.2. Corruption violates Article 39

Article 39(b) requires the State to ensure that “that the ownership and control of the material

resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good”.54

Article 39(c) requires the State to ensure “that the operation of the economic system does not

52

Article 61, Constitution of India; Seervai, H. M., “Constitutional Law of India”, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, Universal


53 State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC

1789; Kasturi Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992; Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v.

Theyyam Joseph, AIR 1996 SC 1271; Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997 SC

645

54 Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271; State of Karnataka v. Ranganath, AIR 1978 SC 215; H. S.

Srinivasa Raghuvachar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 1518; Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of

Assam, (1989) 3 SCC 709; Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3297; State of West Bengal v. K.

C. Kapur, AIR 1997 SC 1348



-15-

result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”.55

Corruption involves dishonest amassing of economic resources by individuals to the

detriment of the community at large. Thus, it is against the Directive Principles laid down in

Article 39 and hence a „violation of the Constitution‟ for which the President may be

impeached under Article 31.

2.2.1.4. Corruption violates ideals that form parts of the Basic Structure of the Constitution

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has identified certain Constitutional provisions and ideals as

constituting the Basic Structure of the Constitution.56

The constituents of the Basic Structure

are to be identified from the text of the Constitution.57

These ideals are considered sacrosanct

and cannot be encroached upon even by the Parliament in exercise of its Constituent power.58

Thus, all Constitutional functionaries are bound to honour these ideals and are not to

transgress them.

55

Assistant Commissioner v. Bennett and Coleman Co., AIR 1970 SC 169; Sonia Bhatia v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 1274; State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan, AIR 1986 SC 1466;

National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Sitaram Mills, AIR 1986 SC 1234

56 Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1461

57 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299

58 Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Sambhamurthy P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987

SC 663; M Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71; I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861



-16-

Among other things, it has been held that the Basic Structure includes democracy59

and rule

of law60

. It is submitted that corruption contravenes the principles of democracy and the rule

of law.

2.2.1.4.1. Corruption violates the Rule of Law

The concept of Rule of Law is invoked often to convey the sense that the administration

cannot exercise arbitrary powers and that it should function according to law.61

It is implied

in the principles of equality and has been described by the Supreme Court as “the antithesis

of arbitrariness” in various instances.62

Corruption involves the conferring of benefits as a result of extraneous consideration.

Furthermore, it is a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act.63

Corruption therefore

results not only in the arbitrary functioning of the administration as a consequence of

59

R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804; Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC

1461; State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361; Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC

412; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of

India, (2006) 7 SCC 1

60 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477; G. C.

Kanungo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 1655; High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirish Kumar

Rangarao Patil, (1997) 6 SCC 339; Union of India v. K. M. Shankarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 582; Secretary, State

of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), AIR 2006 SC 1806; I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861

61 A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262; S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427;

Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1999) 7 SCC 89 ¶12; A. P. Aggarwal v. Government of

NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 205

62 A. D. M. Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 ¶220; IR Coelho v. State of TN (2007) 2 SCC 1 ¶68;

Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. Ram Bhagat, AIR 2002 SC 2914; Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering

Corporation, AIR 2001 SC 3887

63 §§7, 8, 10, 11 and 13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988



-17-

extraneous consideration, but also results in the administration functioning contrary to law.

Corruption, therefore, contravenes the principle of rule of law and is therefore a „violation of

the Constitution‟.

2.2.1.4.2. Corruption violates democracy

The Republic of India is a democracy governed by the rule of law. A democracy, the corner-

stone of which is the guarantee of fundamental rights,64

is a system of governance where

political parties contest elections with a declared agenda.65

It is submitted that corruption is an open mockery to a democratic form of government. Being

explicitly in violation of the principle of equality, corruption violates the very “essence of

democracy”.66

Furthermore, corruption results in the arbitrary functioning of the government

due to the unlawful grant of benefits for an extraneous consideration, thereby violating the

very tenets of the basic structure.

Corruption hence violates the tenets of democracy and constitutes therefore a „violation of the

Constitution‟.

2.2.2. Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 61 supports corruption being a

ground for impeachment of the President

64

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 845; Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845;

S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra, AIR 1980 SC 1362

65 B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SC C33 ¶8; Kanhiya Lal v. Trivedi, AIR 1986 SC 111 ¶10; S. R.

Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2707; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3127

66 M Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71 ¶27



-18-

It is submitted that where the text of a Constitutional provision is ambiguous, the legislative

history of the provision may be legitimately relied upon as an aid to interpretation.67

It is

further submitted that the Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 61 clearly demonstrates

the intention of the framers of the Constitution that corruption should be within the ambit of

the expression “violation of the Constitution” in Article 61.

2.2.2.1. The Court may rely upon Constituent Assembly Debates as an aid to interpretation

The recent practice of the Supreme Court has witnessed extensive references to speeches in

the Constituent Assembly to aid in the interpretation of provisions in the Constitution

whenever any ambiguity vis-à-vis the meaning of a phrase or word arises.68

Constituent

Assembly debates, being “illuminating and helpful”,69

are now a settled means for the

interpretation of Constitutional provisions.70

67

Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A. D. Divelkar, AIR 1957 SC 121; R. L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

AIR 1964 SC 1230; Sanghvi Jeevraj v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers

Union, AIR 1969 SC 530; D. N. Banerjee v. P. R. Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 58

68 Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477; A. V. S. Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

AIR 1970 SC 422; Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 3471; Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh

Dhillon, AIR 1972 SC 1061; Fagu Shaw v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 613; Builders Association of

India v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1737; Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, AIR

1992 SC 320; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean Seth G. S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 13; T. N.

Sheshan, Chief Election Commissioner v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611; Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India,

AIR 1996 SC 770; State of Maharashtra v. Milind, AIR 2001 SC 303

69 Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176; DAV College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737;

Santhosh Kumar v. Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources, (1994) 6 SCC 599; P. M. Bhargava v. University

Grants Commission, AIR 2004 SC 3478

70 S. R. Chaudhury v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2707; Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, AIR 2003 SC 87;

TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 255, Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412



-19-

It is therefore humbly submitted that Constituent Assembly debates, as evidenced by the

practice of the Court, are admissible to aid in the interpretation of provisions of the

Constitution.

2.2.2.2. The Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 61 suggest that corruption is a

“violation of the Constitution”

While it was suggested that, like the American Constitution, specific grounds be laid down

such as “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours” in addition to “violation

of the constitution”, it was decided that the wide import of the term „violation of the

Constitution‟ was such so as to encompass the above situations.71

The term „violation of the

Constitution‟ was consciously provided with a wide ambit so as to accommodate various

situations. The extent of those situations, however, was to be determined by the Parliament in

its wisdom on a case-by-case basis.72

It is therefore humbly submitted that the amplitude of the term „violation of the Constitution”

is sufficiently comprehensive so as to include corruption within its scope.

2.2.3. A purposive interpretation of Article 61 demands that corruption be a

ground for impeachment of the President

71

Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Reports, Vol. VII, 1989, pp. 1081-1082

72 Article 61, Constitution of India; Seervai, H. M., “Constitutional Law of India”, 4

th Ed., Vol. 2, Universal




-20-

It is submitted that even from a purposive angle of interpretation73

, Article 61 should be read

so as to include corruption as a ground for impeachment of the President.

The Constitution contains an intricately woven system of checks and balances so that no

Constitutional functionary may consider itself above the law of the land.74

The President,

given his high office is granted wide immunities and privileges. Article 61 appears to be the

only check and balance upon the President. It is the only provision in the Constitution that

deters the President from contravening the law of the land. The procedure entailed in Article

61 is elaborate and demanding, affording sufficient protection to the President. However, it is

will be absurd to read this only check on the powers of the President, to hold that no entity

can check or sanction the President if he engages in a criminal activity. Therefore, the

Constitution should be interpreted so as to avoid this absurdity and to sub serve the purpose

of the provision.

Hence, it is submitted that the expression “violation of the Constitution” in Article 61 should

be interpreted to include corruption.

73

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353; State of

Uttar Pradesh v. C. Tobit, AIR 1958 SC 414; Santasingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386; Ashok Singh v.

Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, AIR 1992 SC 1756; Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, AIR

2004 SC 4179

74 Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328; State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal

Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92; Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328; Pathumma v. State

of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771; State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, AIR 1997 SC 1390; Daryao v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363

-Prayer -


-21-

PRAYER

In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Appellants humbly

submit that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The President’s grant of sanction runs contrary to Article 74 of the

Constitution of India.

2. Proceedings for the impeachment of the President can be initiated under

Article 61 of the Constitution of India on grounds of corruption.

3. Any other order it deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good

conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd./-

(Counsels for the Appellants)

Documents

NUJS Appellant