In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court on Tuesday held that Members of Parliament (MPs) as well as Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are liable to refund salaries and other emoluments, along with penalty, if a court of law declares their election to be illegal, null and void either before or after the completion of their tenure.
Justice V. Parthiban gave the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by former Congress MLA P. Veldurai in 2011 against a demand raised by Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat to repay ₹ 21.58 lakh, since the Supreme Court had that year held that his election from Cheranmahadevi Assembly constituency in May 2006 was illegal, null and void.
Allowing an election petition preferred by his rival candidate P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian of AIADMK, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Veldurai’s election was not valid because he was a registered government civil contractor at the time of filing nominations and his registration had not been cancelled as per law. The ruling had attained finality.
When he was slapped with a demand for refund from the Assembly Secretariat on August 22, 2011, he rushed to the court contending that the salaries and emoluments paid to him for his services could not be taken back. He also claimed that there was a bar on imposing penalty under Section 107 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951.
‘Not qualified for elections’
Rejecting his contentions, the judge said when a person not qualified to contest in elections had got elected, and subsequently by operation of law lost the status of having been an elected member right from the day when he assumed office, the attendant benefits he had availed during such tenure must necessarily be withdrawn for all practical purposes.
Further, striking a difference between governments servants whose salaries could not be recovered on account of dismissal or termination of service and politicians who run for public offices not to make a living but to serve the people at large, the judge said it would behove well if the latter voluntarily refund the public money once their elections get nullified.
“By no stretch of imagination the member of a House is an employee. If at all, they can claim only to be employees of the people. In a case, where the member is disqualified and his candidature itself goes, all the benefits he had by such election are not due to him at all... The emoluments received by him as such member are not legitimate sums in his hands.
“It was not salary paid for any services rendered... It is a recognition by ‘We the People’ to keep a member of the House compensated for sparing his time for public service... The member himself should be graceful and willing to refund the sums even without the State seeking a refund. That will add to the wisdom and status of those fighting for public offices,” the judge added.
He also said that no one could be allowed to take advantage of the delay in disposal of election petitions which generally get decided only after the completion of the tenure of office of an MP or MLA concerned.
“In a complex judicial process, delay in dispensation of final verdict is inevitable and such delay ought not enure to the benefit of the disqualified member. Otherwise, such disqualified individuals can make full use of the judicial rigmarole and come out unaffected and unscathed, notwithstanding his eventful disqualification achieved through judicially protracted route. In case of a legal delay, the petitioner ought not to be allowed to have the last laugh at the justice delivery system much to the chagrin of public trust and faith reposed on him where he was voted to represent the public cause,” Justice Parthiban said.
He went on to state that the loser in a legal battle could not be allowed to triumphantly hoodwink the judicial system by methodical procrastination as that would only lead to travesty of justice. In a case of this nature, the effect of adverse order should not be symbolic or notional but should be real, tangible and exemplary, the judge asserted.
