What is an Office of Profit?

A position offering financial benefit or influence that could compromise a legislator's independence, disqualifying them from holding it. An office of profit is a position that brings the holder financial gain, advantage or benefit. The amount of profit does not matter. Article 102(1)(a) disqualifies a person who holds one under the Government of India or a State Government, unless Parliament has exempted it by law.

Consider the following statements: 1. The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 exempts several posts from disqualification on the grounds of 'Office of Profit'. 2. The above-mentioned Act was amended five times. 3. The term 'Office of Profit' is well-defined in the Constitution of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 and 2 only. The answer is 1 and 2 only. This is the official UPSC key for Series A, question 49 (UPSC CSE Prelims 2019). Section 3 of the 1959 Act lists offices that do not disqualify an MP, so statement 1 is true. The Constitution does not define the term, so statement 3 is false. The key accepts statement 2, but learn the two big amendments of 2006 and 2013 rather than a headline count.

Under Article 103, who decides whether a Member of Parliament has become disqualified for holding an office of profit?

The President, after obtaining the Election Commission's opinion. The answer is the President, after obtaining the Election Commission's opinion. The decision is final, and the President must act according to that opinion. For State legislators, Article 192 gives the same role to the Governor.

In Jaya Bachchan v Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court held that a post is an office of profit if its pecuniary gain is:

Receivable in connection with the office. The answer is: receivable in connection with the office. The Court said it does not matter whether the holder actually received the gain. Jaya Bachchan chaired the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council. Her post carried a Rs 5,000 monthly honorarium and other benefits. The three-judge bench dismissed her petition on 8 May 2006.

On 23 March 2018 the Delhi High Court set aside the Election Commission's opinion on 20 AAP MLAs. What was the ground?

The Commission did not follow natural justice and give the MLAs a proper hearing. The answer is that the Commission did not follow natural justice. The Division Bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna called the 19 January 2018 opinion bad in law. It asked the Commission to hear the MLAs again. The Court did not decide whether the posts were offices of profit.

Under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which of these needs the Government's previous sanction?

Engaging directly or indirectly in any trade or business. The answer is engaging directly or indirectly in any trade or business. Rule 15(1) bars this without the Government's previous sanction. A casual meal is not a gift under Rule 13. Rule 18 requires an asset return on first appointment. Rule 3 makes integrity a standing duty.

MCQ QuestionsMy progress

Which test did the Constitution Bench in Pradyut Bordoloi v Swapan Roy treat as decisive for an office of profit under the Government?

Question 1 of 7

Was this helpful?

Which test did the Constitution Bench in Pradyut Bordoloi v Swapan Roy treat as decisive for an office of profit under the Government?

Keep practicing

Beyond the answer

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from MCQ Questions