Article 173 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 173 of the Constitution of India
Title: Qualification for membership of the State Legislature
🔹 Text of Article 173:
A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he—
(a) is a citizen of India;
(b) makes and subscribes before some person authorized in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule;
(c) is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and in the case of a seat in the Legislative Council, not less than thirty years of age; and
(d) possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament.
📘 Explanation of Article 173:
Article 173 lays down the basic qualifications a person must meet to contest elections to the State Legislature:
Applies to both:
Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) and
Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) where applicable.
✅ Key Requirements:
| Qualification | Details |
|---|---|
| Citizenship | Must be an Indian citizen. |
| Oath/Affirmation | Must take the prescribed oath as per the Third Schedule. |
| Age | Minimum 25 years for Assembly, 30 for Council. |
| Other qualifications | As prescribed by Parliament (e.g., Representation of the People Act). |
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 173:
1. K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, (2005) 1 SCC 754
Issue: Whether non-disclosure of criminal background disqualifies a candidate.
Held: Non-disclosure of required information in nomination papers can be grounds for disqualification.
Relevance: Reinforces the idea that qualifications and disclosures under Article 173, read with the Representation of the People Act, are mandatory.
2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653
Issue: Disqualification of MPs/MLAs upon conviction in a criminal case.
Held: A legislator stands disqualified immediately upon conviction (as per Section 8 of RPA, 1951).
Relevance: Shows how Clause (d) of Article 173 (i.e., “other qualifications” as prescribed by Parliament) empowers laws like the Representation of the People Act to define further disqualifications.
3. Jagan Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1959 SC 431
Issue: Whether additional qualifications could be imposed by state laws.
Held: Only Parliament can prescribe additional qualifications (Article 173(d)); States cannot.
Relevance: Establishes the central legislative authority over qualifications of candidates.
4. Rajbala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 445
Issue: Constitutionality of minimum educational qualification for panchayat election candidates in Haryana.
Held: Upheld the law; education criteria do not violate equality.
Relevance: Although this case is about panchayats (not legislatures), it indirectly shows how qualifications under constitutional or statutory law (like under 173(d)) must balance rights and purpose.
✅ Summary Table:
| Clause | Requirement |
|---|---|
| (a) | Must be a citizen of India |
| (b) | Must take the prescribed oath |
| (c) | Minimum age: 25 (Assembly), 30 (Council) |
| (d) | Must meet additional qualifications set by Parliament |
🧾 Related Laws:
Representation of the People Act, 1951
Provides further disqualifications (e.g., criminal conviction, insolvency, unsound mind, etc.)
Directly flows from Article 173(d)
📌 Conclusion:
Article 173 sets the constitutional baseline for who can contest State Legislative elections, while Parliament holds the power to enact additional criteria. This Article ensures that:
Only responsible, mature citizens contest elections.
There is uniformity in eligibility across India.
Further eligibility and disqualification criteria evolve with time via legislation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments