Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of Jaya Bachchan for Holding Office of Profit as UP Film Development Council Chairperson

Court Rules That Appointment Carrying Honorarium and Facilities Constitutes Office of Profit, Leading to Automatic Rajya Sabha Disqualification Despite Non-Receipt of Benefits

In a significant judgment delivered on May 8, 2006, the Supreme Court of India upheld the disqualification of renowned actress and Rajya Sabha member Jaya Bachchan from Parliament on grounds of holding an office of profit. The court ruled that her appointment as Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council (UPFDC) amounted to holding an office of profit under the Government of Uttar Pradesh, thereby attracting disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The controversy arose when the Government of Uttar Pradesh appointed Jaya Bachchan as Chairperson of the UPFDC on July 14, 2004, granting her the rank of a Cabinet Minister along with various benefits. These included a monthly honorarium of Rs. 5,000, daily allowances, entertainment expenditure of Rs. 10,000 per month, free accommodation, medical treatment facilities for her and family, staff car with driver, telephone facilities at office and residence, personal security, and other amenities. Although the petitioner contended that she did not avail herself of these benefits and accepted the post purely in an honorary capacity, the Supreme Court held that the entitlement to pecuniary gains was sufficient to constitute an office of profit.

The Election Commission had earlier opined that the post was indeed an office of profit and not exempted under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959. The President of India, based on this opinion, declared Jaya Bachchan disqualified from July 14, 2004, onwards.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, clarified key legal principles regarding offices of profit. It emphasized that the relevant question is whether the office is capable of yielding pecuniary gain, not whether the incumbent actually received or utilized such benefits. The court reiterated precedent from landmark cases such as Ravanna Subanna v. G.S. Kaggeerappa (1954), Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001), and others, which establish that an office carrying remuneration or emoluments—regardless of whether these are accepted—is an office of profit.

The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on earlier judgments where posts held purely in honorary capacity without remuneration were held not to be offices of profit. It found those cases fact-specific and not applicable here, given the explicit grant of honorarium and facilities in this appointment. The court further noted that the petitioner’s wealth or disinterest in the benefits was immaterial to the legal question.

Thus, the writ petition challenging the disqualification was dismissed, affirming the principle that entitlement to pecuniary benefits under a government appointment triggers disqualification from Parliament, ensuring the sanctity of the constitutional bar on holding offices of profit.

This verdict strengthens the enforcement of Article 102(1)(a), which aims to prevent conflict of interest among legislators by disallowing them from holding positions that could yield financial gain from the government. It clarifies that appointments conferring rank and benefits, even if not monetarily availed, fall squarely within this prohibition.

Statutory provisions

Article 32, Article 102(1)(a), Article 103(1), Article 103(2) of the Constitution of India, Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959

Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 122901