Question map
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?
Explanation
The correct answer is option A (statements 1 and 2 only).
**Statement 1 is correct**: The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 declares that certain offices of profit under the Government shall not disqualify the holders thereof for being chosen as (or for being) members of Parliament.[1] This clearly shows the Act exempts several posts from disqualification on grounds of 'Office of Profit'.
**Statement 2 is correct**: The Act has been amended five times since its enactment in 1959, which is a factual matter regarding the legislative history of this Act.
**Statement 3 is incorrect**: The expression 'office of profit under the Government' occurring in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 102 has not been defined in the Constitution.[2] Additionally, the law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit but the definition has evolved over the years[3] through judicial interpretation.
Therefore, only statements 1 and 2 are correct, making option A the right answer.
Sources- [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 81: Election Laws > OTHER ACTS RELATING TO ELECTIONS > p. 580
- [2] https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/Procedure/RajyaSabhaAtWork/English/30-85/CHAPTER3.pdf
- [3] https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/explained-law-on-holding-an-%E2%80%98office-of-profit%E2%80%99?page=52&per-page=1
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis question is a classic 'Wolf in Sheep's Clothing'. While Statement 2 (amendment count) is an obscure 'Bouncer' fact, Statement 3 is a fundamental static concept found in every basic book. The strategy here is not to know everything, but to identify the one 'Definite False' statement (Stmt 3) which collapses the options immediately to [A].
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Does the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 exempt posts from disqualification on the grounds of "Office of Profit"?
- Statement 2: How many times has the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 been amended?
- Statement 3: Is the term "Office of Profit" defined in the Constitution of India?
- Directly states the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 declares certain offices of profit shall not disqualify holders from being chosen as or being members of Parliament.
- Names the 1959 Act as the statutory vehicle that exempts specific offices of profit from disqualification.
- Constitutional provision disqualifies holders of any office of profit except ministers or any other office exempted by Parliament.
- Establishes the constitutional power and basis for Parliament to exempt offices from disqualification (which the 1959 Act implements).
- Reiterates that holding an office of profit is a disqualification except where Parliament exempts the office.
- Corroborates the legislative-exemption mechanism referenced by the 1959 Act.
This snippet explicitly states a claim that 'The above-mentioned Act was amended five times', giving a concrete reported number.
A student could treat this as a lead to verify by checking official amendment lists or the Act's legislative history (dates and amendment Acts) to confirm or refute the claim.
Notes that the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 'declares that certain offices... shall not disqualify' — showing the Act's subject-matter is the kind of law that governments commonly amend over time.
A student could look up subsequent amendments in statute compilations or government gazettes for this specific Act, since such substantive Acts are typically amended by later parliamentary Acts.
Gives an example pattern of amendments by citing specific Amendment Acts (e.g., 52nd, 91st) and illustrating that constitutional and related legal provisions are modified by numbered amendment Acts.
Using this pattern, a student could search for amendment Acts or notifications by number/year that explicitly reference amendments to the 1959 Act.
Shows Parliament routinely adds or modifies disqualification rules via legislation (Representation of People Act, 1951), indicating the institutional practice of altering disqualification-related laws.
A student could trace legislative changes across disqualification-related statutes (including the 1959 Act) in statute repositories or annotated legal texts to count amendments.
- Directly addresses the expression 'office of profit' in relation to Article 102 (the Constitution) and states it has not been defined.
- Is from Rajya Sabha procedural material, an authoritative parliamentary source discussing constitutional text.
- States explicitly that 'the law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit', indicating absence of a clear constitutional definition.
- Explains that the definition has evolved through cases and practice rather than a fixed constitutional definition.
Shows the Constitution (disqualification provisions for state legislatures) uses the phrase 'office of profit' as a ground for disqualification.
A student could check the exact Articles cited for disqualification to see whether a definition clause appears there or is absent.
Reiterates that holding 'any office of profit under the Union or state government' causes disqualification under the Constitution.
One could compare this usage in multiple constitutional provisions to judge whether a definitional clause is present anywhere in the Constitution text.
Notes Article 58 related to presidential qualifications referring to 'office of profit', indicating the term appears in several constitutional Articles.
A student might list all Articles that use the term and then inspect the Constitution for an explicit definitional provision.
Contains a test-question statement asserting (as an item to be judged) that 'The term "Office of Profit" is well-defined in the Constitution', implying this is a contested/uncertain claim.
This suggests students should verify the claim by checking constitutional text and related statutory/explanatory materials (e.g., Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act).
Gives a general pattern: the Constitution uses terms (like 'annual financial statement') without using popular labels, illustrating that the Constitution may use a term without separately defining it.
A student could use this pattern to infer that presence of a term in the Constitution does not guarantee an in-text definition, so they should look for an explicit definitional Article or rely on statutory/ judicial clarification.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter disguised as a Bouncer. Solvable 100% via elimination of Statement 3. Source: Laxmikanth, Chapter on Parliament (Disqualifications).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Office of Profit' controversy (e.g., AAP MLAs case) was in the news, triggering a check on Article 102 and the 1959 Act.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Undefined' List: The Constitution does NOT define 'Office of Profit', 'Untouchability', 'Minority', 'Martial Law', or 'Violation of the Constitution'. Contrast Art 102 (Union disqualification) with Art 191 (State). Know the adjudicating authority: President + ECI opinion (for Office of Profit) vs. Speaker (for Defection).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When you see a hyper-specific fact like 'amended 5 times', do not panic. UPSC puts it there to scare you. Look for the conceptual statement (Stmt 3). If Stmt 3 is false, the obscure fact becomes irrelevant to the answer key.
This statute is the specific legislative instrument that exempts certain offices of profit from disqualification for Parliament membership.
High-yield for polity: knowing this Act helps answer questions on legal exceptions to constitutional disqualifications and the practical mechanism by which Parliament protects office-holders. It connects constitutional provisions on disqualification with statutory implementation and is commonly tested in MCQs and mains questions on membership rules.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 81: Election Laws > OTHER ACTS RELATING TO ELECTIONS > p. 580
The Constitution disqualifies holders of offices of profit but expressly permits Parliament to exempt particular offices.
Essential for understanding how constitutional disqualifications can be modified by law; clarifies the relationship between constitutional text and parliamentary power. Useful for questions on separation of powers, interpretation of disqualification clauses, and legal remedies.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 226
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 226
Membership disqualifications include office of profit alongside other grounds such as criminal conviction and interest in government contracts.
Core syllabus topic: mastering the list and nature of disqualifications aids in answering polity questions, case studies on membership disputes, and understanding the roles of President and Election Commission in final determination. It links to Representation of the People Act and constitutional safeguards.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
Explains that the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 provides specific exemptions from disqualification on the ground of office of profit.
High-yield for questions on disqualification and eligibility of MPs; links constitutional concepts of disqualification with statutory reliefs. Mastering this helps answer questions on eligibility, comparative statutes, and interpretation of 'office of profit' issues in polity papers and interview scenarios.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 81: Election Laws > OTHER ACTS RELATING TO ELECTIONS > p. 580
Distinguishes additional disqualifications laid down by Parliament in statute from those in the Constitution.
Essential for objective and mains questions distinguishing constitutional provisions from legislative amendments; helps in tackling questions on electoral law, disqualification grounds (criminal conviction, corrupt practices), and interplay between Constitution and statutes.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 23: Parliament > Disqualifications > p. 227
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 33: State Legislature > til Disqualifications > p. 338
Clarifies that the President decides questions of disqualification of Parliament members in consultation with the Election Commission.
Useful for questions on institutional roles and checks in electoral disputes and disqualification cases; links to topics on separation of powers, role of constitutional authorities, and adjudication of membership disputes.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 18: President > Legislative Powers > p. 193
Holding any office of profit under the Union or a State is a specified ground for disqualification from state legislatures.
High-yield for UPSC because questions often ask about disqualification criteria, related articles and their exceptions; links directly to election law, legislative membership and constitutional eligibility. Mastering this helps answer questions on electoral law, state vs. Union provisions and comparative disqualification clauses.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 14: The State Legislature > THE STATE LEGISLATURE > p. 284
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 33: State Legislature > til Disqualifications > p. 337
Since they asked about the 1959 Act, the next logical sibling is the 'Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India' judgment, which established that 'pecuniary gain' is the deciding factor for Office of Profit, not the actual receipt of salary.
The 'Constitutional Definition' Heuristic: Whenever a statement says 'Term X is defined in the Constitution', assume it is FALSE unless you are 100% sure (e.g., 'State' is defined in Art 12). Terms like Untouchability, Minority, and Office of Profit are NOT defined. Eliminating Stmt 3 removes options B, C, and D instantly.
Mains GS-2 (Separation of Powers): The 'Office of Profit' doctrine is not just a rule but a structural firewall to prevent the Executive from corrupting the Legislature by offering perks/positions, thereby preserving the independence of MPs.