Punjab and Haryana High Court laments absence of educational qualification requirement to become MP, MLA

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that India’s first President Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s regret in not mandating a minimum qualification to become Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLA) or Members of Parliament (MP) has not been addressed to date [Harinder Dhingra vs Narbir Singh]..Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu referred to the address made by Dr. Prasad in the Constituent Assembly on November 26 in 1949 in which he had said that it was anomalous to insist on high qualifications for those who administer or help in administering the law and not for those who make it..“A period of about 75 years has been consumed; but till date, the “first regret” is waiting for amelioration. Even as on today, there is no requirement of any educational qualification for becoming a Cabinet Minister; or Member of Parliament (M.P); and/or Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A) in our country,” the Court said..The Court made the observation while upholding dismissal of a criminal complaint alleging that the Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rao Narbir Singh had given false information about his educational qualification in the nomination papers.The complainant and RTI activist Harinder Dhingra had alleged that Singh in 2005 had claimed that he graduated from ‘Hindi Vishvavidyalaya Hindi Sahitya Samımelan Praya’ in 1986 but later mentioned that he had graduated from "Hindi Vishvavidyalay Allahabad".However, the University Grants Commission (UGC) in a response under the RTI Act revealed that there was no such university, Dhingra told the Court. .While dismissing the criminal revision, Justice Sindhu said the Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the complaint has assigned good and sufficient reasons.“A bare glance on the above extract clearly indicates that the impugned order has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate after due application of judicial mind and the view taken in the matter is quite justified being plausible to the effect that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against respondent for summoning him in the present complaint,” the Court said..The Court found sufficient material to indicate that Singh had graduation degrees at the filing of his nomination papers in 2005 and 2014. “Of course, it is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that above degrees obtained by the respondent are not legally valid inasmuch as the Institute (alleged Deemed University) is not approved by the UGC; but that does not make the respondent liable for making any false declaration in Form No. 26, attached with the nomination form and/or for filing an affidavit in support thereof and to face prosecution in the manner alleged,” it said..The Court added that the complainant was not alleging that Singh had not completed his degrees or the same were fake, forged or fabricated. “Even accepting as a worse proposition to the effect that the Institute was not recognised by the UGC and/or the degrees awarded by the said Institute are found to be not valid in law, for any purpose; still it would be wrong to allege that respondent has committed any crime while obtaining the degrees in question.”.The Court also observed that if Singh had enrolled himself with the institute with due care and attention but subsequently it is found that the institute was not recognized by the UGC, he cannot be faulted for it or prosecuted for obtaining such degrees.It further said the complainant was not alleging that Singh was instrumental in running the institute or had obtained the degrees in any deceitful manner.“Needless to repeat that till date, in our country, for contesting an election as an MLA or MP, there is no requirement of any educational qualification,” the Court said..The Court also rejected the argument that since Singh had given contradictory information about the year of graduation, he was guilty of false declaration in the nomination papers“In the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said to be a false declaration and/or a ground for criminal prosecution; rather at best, same could be termed as a clerical or typing error, having no material consequences upon the fate of a candidate,” the single-judge said.Thus, the Court upheld the trial court order. .Advocate KS Khehar represented the complainant Harinder Dhingra.Senior Advocate RS Rai along with advocates Gautam Dutt, Advocate, Anurag Arora, PS Ahluwalia and Radhika Mehta represented respondent Narbir Singh.[Read Judgment]