Political parties constitute an essential feature of modern political system and have become indispensable for the success of Democracy in general and of parliamentary democracies in particular. They maintain, preserve and sustain democratic institutions and processes. They not only perform their primary function of forming a government or organizing an opposition, but also represent certain interests and ideologies whose point of view they articulate.

They mobilize support for their cause; thereby act as a vital link between the government and the people.

1. The party systems are shaped largely by the interaction of various socio-economic and political forces in a society and vary from country to country and system to system.
2.  In the words of Weiner: deep changes owing to the cultural and ethnic diversities often divided the society and the forces of tribalism, traditionalism, regionalism and the like have powerfully manifested in giving rise to the fragmentation and proliferation of the parties in the developing countries.
3. In a democratic government, the elected representatives of the government represent the people's will and have a crucial role to play.
    

In India, the elected representatives of Parliament represent the sovereign and have responsibilities such as passing legislation, administering laws, etc. With such responsibilities for government representatives kept in mind, the forefathers envisioned eligibility criteria that had to be met by those candidates intending to run for political office.

When compared to other developed countries, however, India lags in several areas concerning political eligibility. Such areas include a lack of educational qualifications and corruption, preventing the Indian political system working efficiently. This is in contrast to developed democracies which can maintain a strict eligibility standard for those wishing to contest for office.

The Constitution of India also lays down the qualifications and disqualifications on the various grounds. Parliament has supplemented the above basic qualifications and disqualifications by prescribing some further qualifications and disqualifications in the Representation of People's Act 1951.

This paper will explain the qualifications and disqualifications for the house of the members of the people and state legislative assemblies with regard to the Representation of People's Act, 1951. It will focus on understanding the current qualification and disqualification in the country and where it lacks.

Qualifications
The qualifications of the candidates discussed as per the Constitution of India and the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Act was passed by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution, make detailed provisions in regard to all the matters and all stages connected with elections to the various Legislature in the country. That Act is divided into 11 parts, and it is interesting to see the wide variety of subjects they deal with. Part II deals with "the qualifications and disqualifications for membership" - Chapter 1 titled as "Qualifications for Membership of Parliament" and Chapter 2 titled as "Qualifications for Membership of State Legislature".

Qualification for Election to the Parliament: The Person who wants to contest as a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya Sabha (Council of States) from a parliamentary constituency, he/she must have the following qualifications:

1. he/she must be a citizen of India;
2. he/she must make and subscribe before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution;
3. he/she shall not be qualified to be chosen as a representative of any State or Union territory in the Council of States unless he is an elector for a Parliamentary constituency in India;
4. he/she must not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House of the People, unless�
   1.  in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes in any State, he is a member of any of the Scheduled Castes, whether of that State or of any other State, and is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency;
   2.  in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in any State (other than those in the autonomous districts of Assam), he is a member of any of the Scheduled Tribes, whether of that State or of any other State (excluding the tribal areas of Assam), and is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency;
   3. in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam, he is a member of any of those Scheduled Tribes and is an elector for the Parliamentary constituency in which such seat is reserved or for any other Parliamentary constituency comprising any such autonomous district;
   4. (cc) in the case of the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Union territory of Lakshadweep, he is a member of any of those Scheduled Tribes and is an elector for the Parliamentary constituency of that Union territory;
   5. (ccc) in the case of the seat allotted to the State of Sikkim, he is an elector for the Parliamentary constituency for Sikkim;
   6. in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency.

Qualification for Election to a Legislative Assembly: The person who wants to contest as candidate for election to a legislative assembly, he/she must possess the following qualifications:

1. he/she must be citizen of India;
2. he/she must make and scribe before some person authorized by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution;
3. he must not be less than twenty-five years of age on the date of scrutiny of nominations;
4. 1. in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes of that State, he is a member of any of those castes or of those tribes, as the case may be, and is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State;
   2. in the case of a seat reserved for an autonomous district of Assam, he is a member of a Scheduled Tribe of any autonomous district and is an elector for the Assembly constituency in which such seat or any other seat is reserved for that district;
   3. in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State.
       
5. he/she must be the member of the regional council with respect to Tuensang district in the legislative assembly of Nagaland;
    
6. In case of membership of Legislative Assembly of Sikkim:
   1. He/she must be a person either of Bhutia or Lepcha origin and is an elector for any assembly constituency in the State other than the constituency reserved for the Sanghas in the case of a seat reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin - the term "Bhutia" includes Chumbpia, Dopthapa, Dukpa, Kagatey, Sherpa, Tibetan, Tromopa, and Yolmo.;
   2. He/she must be the member of any of those castes in the State of Sikkim and is an elector for any assembly constituency in the State in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes;
   3. He/she must be an elector of the Sangha constituency, in the case of a seat reserved for Sanghas;
   4. He/she must be an elector for any assembly constituency in the State, in the case of any other seat.
       
7. In case of a Legislative Council:
   1. he/she must be an elector for any Assembly constituency in that state.
   2. He/she must be an ordinarily resident in the state.

In Kishori Lal Hans v. Raja Ram Singh,15 the appellant was declared elected in February 1967 the Bhander Assembly constituency in District Datia of the State of Madhya Pradesh a seat which was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. Under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order 1956, the President of India had declared in respect of District Datia the various castes which were to be recognised as Scheduled castes. In items thereof the castes mentioned were:
'Chamar, Ahirwar, Chamar Mangam, Mochi and Raidas.' The respondent, an unsuccessful candidate at the said election filed an election petition inter alia on the ground that the appellant, was a Jatav by caste and therefore not a member of any of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Presidential Order.

The appellant contended that the Jatav caste was a sub-caste of the caste chamar mentioned in the order. The High Court decided against the appellant who appealed to this Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the returned candidate, in the present case, was not entitled to establish that Jatav caste was the same as Chamar.

The Supreme Court in R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India 16 held that Cl. ( c) of sub-section (1-A) of Sec. 7 and Sec. 25-A of the 1950 Act and the words "other than constituency reserved for Sanghas" in Cl. (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 5-A and Cl. (c) of subsection (2) of Section 5-A of the 1951 Act are violative of the provisions of Arts. 15(1) and 325 of the Constitution and are not saved by Art. 371-F of the Constitution.

The said provision are, however, severable from the other provisions which have been inserted in the 1950 Act and the 1951 Act by the 1976 Act and the 1980 Act and the striking down of the impunged provisions does not stand in the way of giving effect to other provisions.

The Court favoured striking down Section 25-A inserted in the 1950 Act by the Act 10 of 1976 and the provisions contained in Cl. (c) of sub-section (1-A) which has been inserted in Section 7 of the 1950 Act by Act 8 of 1980, the words "other than the constituency reserved for the Sanghas" in Cl. (a) of sub-section (2) as well as Cl. (c) of sub-section (2) inserted in Sec.5-A of the 1951 Act by Act 8 of 1980 as being unconstitutional.

For the reason above mentioned, the cases have to be partly allowed and it is declared that Sec 25-A introduced in the 1950 Act by Act No. 10 of 1976, Cl. (c ) of sub-section (1-A) introduced in Section 7 of the 1950 Act by Act No. 8 of 1980. The words, other than consistency reserved for the Sanghas in Cl. (a) of sub-section (2) introduced in Sec. 5-A of the 1951 Act by Act No. 8 of 1980 and Cl. (c) of sub-section (2) introduced in Section 5-A of the 1951 Act by Act No. 8 of 1980 are unconstitutional and void.

Disqualifications
Provisions contained in Chapter III of the People Representation Act, 1951 have been a familiar feature of election laws from very early times. They are based on a sound, solemn and salutary principle which democracies or democratic constitutions ill-afford to spare or ignore.

The basic standpoint is to prevent conflict between interest and duty which would otherwise inevitably arise and to prevent the member concerned from being exposed to temptation or even the semblance of temptation.17 There are two kinds of disqualifications: (1) Constitutional Disqualifications and (2) Statutory Disqualifications.

Constitutional Disqualifications:

1. The candidate must not hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State.¹⁸ However, there are following exceptions to this rule such as the office of a Minister, either for the Union or for any State, which is not regarded as an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State.¹⁹ The other exceptions are mentioned in the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959.
2. One must not be a person of unsound mind and must not stand so declared by a competent court.²⁰
3. One must not be an undischarged insolvent.²¹
4. One will be disqualified if he is not a citizen of India or if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State or if he is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State. In simple words, one must not be an alien and a foreigner.²²
5. One must not be disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.²³

Statutory Qualifications:
The Parliament has passed the enactment of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in accordance with Article 102(1) (e) of the Constitution of India. In addition to the above constitutional disqualifications, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has prescribed certain disqualifications for being a member of Parliament. The disqualifications which are mentioned in Section 8, 8A, 9, 9A and 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 are statutory disqualifications.

There are six statutory disqualifications as mentioned below:

1. The first statutory disqualifications as per Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is that a person who is convicted of an offence punishable under:
   1. section 153A (offence of promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery) or section 171F (offence of undue influence or personation at an election) or subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 or section 376A or section 376B or section 376C or section 376D (offences relating to rape) or section 498A (offence of cruelty towards a woman by husband or relative of a husband) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 (offence of making statement creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or offence relating to such statement in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); or
       
   2. the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955) which provides for punishment for the preaching and practice of "untouchability", and for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom; or
       
   3. section 11 (offence of importing or exporting prohibited goods) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); (d)sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a member of an association declared unlawful, offence relating to dealing with funds of an unlawful association or offence relating to contravention of an order made in respect of a notified place) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967); or
       
   4. the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973 (46 of 1973); or
   5. the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985);
   6. section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts) or section 4 (offence of committing disruptive activities) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
   7. section 7 (offence of contravention of the provisions of sections 3 to 6) of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (41 of 1988); or
   8. section 125 (offence of promoting enmity between classes in connection with the election) or section 135 (offence of removal of ballot papers from polling stations) or section 135A (offence of booth capturing) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 136 (offence of fraudulently defacing or fraudulently destroying any nomination paper) of this Act; [or]
   9. section 6 (offence of conversion of a place of worship) of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991;
   10. section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India) or section 3 (offence of preventing singing of National Anthem) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (69 of 1971),
   11. the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988); or
   12. the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); or
   13. the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of 2002), shall be disqualified, where the convicted person is sentenced to� only fine, for a period of six years from the date of such conviction or imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.
        
2. If a person has been convicted for the contravention of any law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or any law relating to the adulteration of food or drugs or any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, he shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of 6 years since his release from imprisonment.
   
   It may be noted that in case of conviction of a person more than one offence, in a common trial and with the sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively, for the purposes of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the period of sentences of imprisonment of each offence should be added and if the total length of time for which a person has been ordered to remain in prison consequent upon such conviction and sentences is two years or more, the convicted person shall be disqualified under the said Section 8(3) of the Representation People Act, 1951.
   
   The constitutional validity of this part challenged in the case of Raghubir Singh v. Satbir Singh24 , the submission of appellant is that the period of disqualifications in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 should be identical and there is no rational basis for providing a different period of disqualification in the different sub-sections of Section 8.
   
   The court has rejected this argument and upheld the constitutional validity of this part. The Court has observed that prescription of period of disqualification for different classes of persons convicted of different offences is within the domain of legislative discretion and wisdom which is not open to judicial scrutiny. The word "punishable" means deserving or liable to punishment capable of being punished by law, may be punished and not must be punished. 25
    
3. A person convicted by a Court in India for any offence other than those mentioned in (i) and (ii) above and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years is disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further qualified period of six years since his release form prison. This statutory disqualifications under sub-section (1) to (3) of Section 8 shall, not however, take effect under Section 8(4) in the case of a person who on the date of such conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State until a period of three months has elapsed from the date of conviction or if within that period of three months an appeal or application for revision is filed in respect to the conviction or sentence, until the appeal or application for revisions is disposed by the Court. However, it has to be noted that the protection under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 is applicable only in relation to the membership of the House in which the person concerned is a member at the time of conviction. In other words, the protection of Section 8(4) will not be available for contesting any future elections. 26
    
4. The second statutory disqualification is contained in section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It provides for disqualifications for a corrupt practice at an election. A person found guilty of a corrupt practice at an election by a High Court in an election petition or by the Supreme Court in an election appeal may be disqualified for such period, not exceeding six years, as may be determined by the President in accordance with the opinion of the Election Commission.
   
   According to Section 123 of RPA Act, 1951 the lists of corrupt practices are given. They are:
   
   1.  bribery,
   2. undue Influence,
   3. appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste community or language etc.
   4. the promotion or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between classes of citizen,
   5. publication of any statement of fact which is falls,
   6. the hiring or procuring of any vehicle or vessel on payment or otherwise by a candidate or his agent or, by; any other person with the consent of a candidate of his election agent, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely: -
      • gazetted officers;
      • stipendiary judges and magistrates;
      • member of the armed forces or police officers;
      • excise or revenue officers.
   
    
5. The third statutory disqualification is contained in Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It provides for disqualifications for dismissal for corruption or disloyalty to the State. A person who having held an office under the Government of India or under the Government of any State has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be disqualified for a period of 5 years from the date of such dismissal.
   
   A certificate issued by the Election Government to the effect that a person having held office under the Government of India or the Government of any State has or has not been dismissed for corruptions or for disloyalty to the State shall be conclusive proof of that fact. No certificate, however, shall be issued by the Election Commission to the effect that a person has been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State without giving that person an opportunity of being heard. vi. The fourth statutory disqualification is contained in Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
   
   Under this Section, a person is disqualified for being chosen as or for being a member of Parliament if, and for so as long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the Government of India for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government.
   
   If, however, you have entered enter into a contract with the Government of India in the course of your trade or business either for the supply of any goods to the Government or for execution of any works undertaken by the Government or for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government or for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government and have fully performed your part of contract, then the contract, then the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that the Government has not performed its part of the contrast either wholly or in part.
   
   The Explanation to sec. 9A of the R.P. Act makes it clear that even if the Government has not paid wholly or even in part the price for the goods supplied pursuant to a contract, the contract shall not be deemed to be subsisting for the purposes of sec. 9A of the Act.27 In order to invoke the provisions of section 9A of the R.P. Act, the following ingredients have to be conclusively established:
   
   1. There must be a contract between the person against whom section 9A is being invoked, and the State
   2. Such contract must be for execution of any works undertaken by the Government
   3. Such contract must have been entered into with such person in the course of his trade or business for the supply of goods to the State
   4. Such contract must be subsisting on the date of Hiring of nomination paper. 28
   
    
6. The fifth statutory disqualification is the holding of an under a Government company. This is contained in Section 10 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. A person is disqualified for membership of Parliament if, and for so long as he is a managing agent, manager or secretary of any corporation or company in the capital of which the Government of India has not less than 25 percent share. A cooperative society, however, is excluded from the purview of this rule.
   
   On a careful examination of the ratio laid down in Kona Prabhakar Rao v. M. Seshgiri Rao, 29 Guruboinda Basu v. Sankari Prasad Ghosal 30 and Maulana Abdul Shakur v. Rikhab Chand 31 some of the tests of principles that emerge for determining whether a person holds an office of profit under Government, may be summarised thus:
   
   • The power of the Government to appoint a person in office or to revoke his appointment at its discretion. The mere control of the Government over the authority having the power to appoint, dismiss, or control the working of the officer employed by such authority does not disqualify that officer from being a candidate for election as a member of the legislature.
      
   • The payment from out of the Government revenues are important factors in determining whether a person is holding an office of profit or not of the government. Though payment from a source other than the Government revenue is not always a decisive factor.
      
   • The incorporation of a body corporate and entrusting the functions to it by the Government may suggest that the statute intended it to be a statutory corporation independent of the Government. But it is not conclusive on the question whether it is really so independent. Sometimes, the form may be that of a body corporate independent of the Government, but in substance, it may just be alter ego of the government itself.
      
   • The true test of determination of the said question depends upon the degree of control the Government has over it, the extent of control exercised by very other bodies or committees, and its composition, the degree of its dependence on the Government for its financial needs and the functional aspect, namely, whether the body is discharging any important governmental function or just some function which is merely optional from the point view of the Government.
      
7. The last statutory disqualifications are contained in Section 10A of the Representation People Act, 1951. It is a disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by and under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is hoped that if you had stood as a candidate on any previous occasion, you did not incur any such disqualification on that occasion.
   
   If you have been disqualified for failure to lodge account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by and under the Representation of People Act, 1951, then, as the period of disqualifications in three years from the date of the order of the Election Commission disqualifying you, you may see whether the period of three years has elapsed or not.

The reason for disqualification is inbuilt in the order of disqualification issued under sec. 10A of the Act itself, that is, failure to lodge the account of the election expenses beyond that the Parliament never intended the Election Commission to record any reasons.32

When the law required the petitioner to lodge the account of election expenses in the prescribed manner, it was incumbent upon him to lodge the same in that very manner.33 The question of resorting to the principles of natural justice in a case u/s. 10A of the R.P. Act, 1951, because, if a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any law or of the principles of natural justice, then the courts cannot ignore the mandate of the Legislature or the statutory authority and read into the 'concerned provisions the principles of natural justice.34

These are all the disqualifications constitutional and statutory from which you must not suffer if you want to stand as a candidate for election to the House of People (Lok Sabha).

Conclusion
From the sources consulted, authorities and legislations referred to, and the cases cited above it can be concluded that there is a need for a revision for India's elected representatives and India's democratic structure. As stated earlier, significant problems that plague Indian democracy and India's political structure include criminalization of politics, lack of educational qualifications amongst members of Parliament, and no concrete standards for the same. Furthermore, as evident in the catena of the judgements of Supreme Court.

The Court has voiced its opinion that reforms are needed to address the problems faced by Indian democracy. Individual states in India have taken note of the issues facing the Indian political structure and have taken measures, though at the state level, to combat it. The Haryana State government has created minimum educational qualifications at the Panchayat Raj level as the first reform step. The apex court of India has taken note of the State government's efforts and voiced its approval for the same.

The Government should add more qualifications to it, such as - Educational qualification, Knowledge of Indian politics, as well as current affairs - Leadership skills and Criminal background checks on prospective candidates. Overall, the qualifications and disqualifications provide important protection for integrity of Indian democratic structure.

End-Notes:

1. Paul R. Brass, (1986), Factional Politics in an Indian State: The Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh, Oxford University Press, Bombay, p. 1.
2. Myron Weiner, (1961), 'State Politics in India, Report on a Seminar', Asian Survey, Vol. I, No.4, June, pp. 35�40.
3. Ibid.
4. Article 84(a) Constitution of India.
5. Article 84(a) Constitution of India and Form III/A in the Third Schedule.
6. Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
7. Section 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
8. Article 173(a) of Constitution of India.
9. Article 173(a) of Constitution of India.
10. Article 173(b) of Constitution of India.
11. Section 5 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
12. Ibid.
13. Section 5A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
14. Section 6 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
15. 1972 AIR 598, 1972 SCR (2) 632.
16. AIR 1993 SC 1804.
17. Brojo Gopal Das v. Kalipada Banerjee, AIR 1960 Cal. 92:20 Ele. LR 325.
18. Article 102(1)(a) Constitution of India.
19. Article 102(2) Constitution of India.
20. Article 102(1)(b) Constitution of India.
21. Article 102(1)(c) Constitution of India.
22. Article 102(1)(d) Constitution of India.
23. Article 102(1)(e ) Constitution of India.
24. 1995 (1) P.L.R. 77.
25. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC.
26. K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, AIR 2002 SC 3393.
27. Anjani Ramji v.Fugro Narayan, AIR 1968 Daman & Diu 127.
28. Somnath Rath v. Bikram Keshari Arukh, AIR 1999 Ori. 119
29. (1982) 1 SCC 442.
30. (1964) 4 SCR 311.
31. 1958 SCR 311.
32. Capt. Chanan Singh Sidhu v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1992 P.& H. 183 :(1992) 2 PLR 12.
33. Sucheta Kriplani v. S.S. Dulat, AIR 1955 SC 758:1955 (2) SCR 450:1955 SCI 793; Election Commission of India v. N.G. Ranga, AIR 1978 SC 1609:1979 (1) SCR 210:1978 (4) SCC 181.
34. Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40: 1971 (1) SCR 791: 1970 (2) SCC 458: 1970 SLR 748.