Article 103 of the Constitution of India provides the constitutional mechanism for deciding whether a member of either House of Parliament has incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1).
- Meaning of Article 103
- Clause-wise Explanation
- Article 103(2): Opinion of the Election Commission
- Role of the Election Commission
- Why Does Article 103 Require the Election Commission’s Opinion?
- Article 103 Applies to Existing Members
- Article 103 and Article 102
- Article 103 and Article 101
- Article 103 and Article 104
- Article 103 and the Tenth Schedule
- Article 103 and Parliamentary Law
- President’s Decision Is “Final”
- Nature of the President’s Role
- Election Commission’s Inquiry
- Important Distinctions
- Common Confusions
- Article at a Glance
- Quick Revision
- Conclusion
The provision assigns the decision to the President of India, but requires the President to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission before deciding the question. The President is constitutionally bound to act according to that opinion.
Article 103 is therefore a decision-making provision that connects parliamentary disqualification under Article 102(1) with the constitutional role of the Election Commission.
Meaning of Article 103
Article 103 operates when a question arises as to whether a sitting member of the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha has become subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 102(1).
The constitutional process is:
Question of disqualification → Reference to President → Opinion of Election Commission → President’s decision according to that opinion
The Article is concerned specifically with the disqualifications contained in Article 102(1). It should not be extended to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, which has its own constitutional mechanism.
Clause-wise Explanation
Article 103(1): Decision by the President
Article 103(1) provides that if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1), the question shall be referred for the decision of the President.
The President’s decision is declared by the Constitution to be final.
The provision therefore identifies the President as the constitutional authority responsible for deciding questions concerning whether an existing member has incurred an Article 102(1) disqualification.
What kinds of disqualification are covered?
Article 103(1) covers the disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1), including:
- holding an office of profit, subject to the constitutional and statutory exceptions;
- being of unsound mind and standing so declared by a competent court;
- being an undischarged insolvent;
- specified citizenship or foreign allegiance circumstances; and
- disqualification created by or under a law made by Parliament.
The provision does not refer to Article 102(2).
Article 103(2): Opinion of the Election Commission
Before giving a decision under Article 103(1), the President must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission.
The constitutional requirement does not stop at consultation in the ordinary sense.
Article 103(2) expressly requires the President to:
- obtain the opinion of the Election Commission; and
- act according to that opinion.
Therefore, the Election Commission’s opinion has a binding constitutional role in the President’s decision-making process.
Role of the Election Commission
The Election Commission performs an important adjudicatory role in the Article 103 process.
When a question concerning an Article 102(1) disqualification is referred for decision, the President cannot decide the question independently of the Election Commission’s opinion.
The constitutional sequence is:
| Stage | Authority/action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Question arises regarding Article 102(1) disqualification |
| 2 | Question is referred to the President |
| 3 | President obtains the Election Commission’s opinion |
| 4 | Election Commission gives its opinion |
| 5 | President decides the question |
| 6 | President must act according to the Election Commission’s opinion |
The constitutional arrangement therefore combines the formal decision-making authority of the President with the specialised constitutional role of the Election Commission.
Why Does Article 103 Require the Election Commission’s Opinion?
Disqualification questions may involve complex questions concerning election law, parliamentary membership and statutory disqualifications.
The Election Commission is constitutionally entrusted with functions relating to elections and electoral matters. Article 103 therefore requires its opinion before the President decides whether a member has incurred an Article 102(1) disqualification.
The arrangement also prevents the question from being decided solely on the basis of executive discretion.
Article 103 Applies to Existing Members
The wording of Article 103(1) concerns whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to an Article 102(1) disqualification.
The provision therefore principally concerns a question arising during parliamentary membership.
It is distinct from the process by which the validity of an election itself is challenged.
Article 103 and Article 102
Article 102 and Article 103 perform different functions.
Article 102 → identifies the grounds of disqualification.
Article 103 → provides the constitutional mechanism for deciding whether a member has incurred an Article 102(1) disqualification.
For example, if a question arises as to whether a sitting MP has incurred a disqualification because of an office of profit, Article 102(1)(a) provides the substantive ground, while Article 103 provides the decision-making mechanism.
Article 103 and Article 101
Article 101 deals with vacation of seats.
Article 102 identifies disqualifications.
Article 103 provides the mechanism for deciding whether a member has incurred a disqualification under Article 102(1).
The three provisions can therefore be understood together:
Article 102 → What constitutes disqualification?
Article 103 → Who decides whether the disqualification has been incurred?
Article 101 → What happens to the seat when the relevant disqualification arises?
This distinction is important because disqualification and vacation of a seat are constitutionally related but conceptually different.
Article 103 and Article 104
Article 104 imposes a monetary penalty on a person who knowingly sits or votes as a member in specified circumstances, including when the person knows that they are disqualified.
Article 103, on the other hand, provides the mechanism for determining an Article 102(1) disqualification.
Thus:
| Article | Main function |
|---|---|
| Article 102 | Grounds of disqualification |
| Article 103 | Decision on Article 102(1) disqualification |
| Article 104 | Penalty for sitting/voting in specified circumstances |
Article 103 and the Tenth Schedule
One of the most important distinctions is between Article 102(1) and Article 102(2).
Article 102(2) provides that a person is disqualified for membership of either House if disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.
Article 103(1), however, expressly refers only to the disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1).
Therefore, Article 103 is not the general constitutional mechanism for deciding every possible parliamentary disqualification.
Tenth Schedule disqualification
Disqualification arising under the anti-defection provisions of the Tenth Schedule is governed by the mechanism provided in the Tenth Schedule itself.
Consequently:
Article 103 → Article 102(1) disqualifications
Tenth Schedule → defection-related disqualifications under Article 102(2)
This is an important examination distinction.
Article 103 and Parliamentary Law
Article 102(1)(e) allows Parliament to create additional disqualifications by law.
Therefore, a disqualification created through parliamentary legislation can fall within Article 103 where it constitutes a disqualification under Article 102(1).
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 contains several statutory disqualifications for membership of Parliament.
Article 103 provides the constitutional decision-making framework for questions concerning disqualifications falling within Article 102(1).
President’s Decision Is “Final”
Article 103(1) expressly states that the President’s decision shall be final.
This means that, within the constitutional mechanism established by Article 103, the President is the designated decision-making authority.
However, the use of the word “final” does not mean that the decision is completely beyond judicial scrutiny. Constitutional decisions may remain subject to judicial review on appropriate grounds under the constitutional scheme.
The important point is that Article 103 does not create an ordinary political decision by the President. It establishes a specific constitutional adjudicatory mechanism in which the President must act according to the Election Commission’s opinion.
Nature of the President’s Role
The President’s role under Article 103 is different from the President’s ordinary constitutional functions performed on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Article 103 itself creates a specific mechanism requiring the President to obtain and follow the Election Commission’s opinion.
The President therefore cannot simply disregard the Election Commission’s opinion and reach an independent conclusion.
Election Commission’s Inquiry
The Election Commission may undertake the inquiry necessary for forming its opinion on the disqualification question.
Its role is therefore not merely formal.
The Commission examines the relevant facts and law and forms an opinion before the President makes the constitutional decision.
The statutory framework also gives the Election Commission powers concerning inquiries into disqualification of members.
Important Distinctions
Article 102 vs Article 103
Article 102 contains the grounds of disqualification.
Article 103 contains the decision-making mechanism for Article 102(1) disqualification questions.
Article 103 vs Tenth Schedule
Article 103 concerns disqualifications under Article 102(1).
The Tenth Schedule contains the separate mechanism for defection-related disqualification under Article 102(2).
Disqualification vs vacation of seat
Disqualification is the legal status arising from a specified ground.
Vacation of the seat is the resulting constitutional consequence in the circumstances provided by Article 101.
Article 103 determines the relevant disqualification question; it does not itself constitute the general provision governing vacation of seats.
President’s decision vs Election Commission’s opinion
The President gives the formal decision, but the President must first obtain the Election Commission’s opinion and must act according to that opinion.
The two roles should not be described as though the President can choose whether to accept the Commission’s opinion.
Article 103 vs election petition
Article 103 concerns whether an existing member has become subject to a disqualification under Article 102(1).
An election petition challenging an election is governed by the relevant electoral law and follows a different procedure.
Common Confusions
Who decides whether an MP has incurred an Article 102(1) disqualification?
The question is referred to the President of India under Article 103.
Can the President decide the matter without consulting the Election Commission?
No.
The President must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission before giving a decision.
Is the Election Commission’s opinion binding on the President?
Yes.
Article 103(2) expressly requires the President to act according to the opinion of the Election Commission.
Does Article 103 apply to anti-defection cases?
No, not as the decision-making mechanism under Article 103.
Article 103 specifically concerns disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1). Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is governed by the mechanism contained in the Tenth Schedule.
Does Article 103 itself create any new disqualification?
No.
The grounds of disqualification are principally contained in Article 102 and relevant parliamentary laws. Article 103 provides the mechanism for deciding questions concerning Article 102(1) disqualifications.
Does the President have unrestricted discretion under Article 103?
No.
The President must obtain the Election Commission’s opinion and is constitutionally required to act according to it.
Does “final” mean the President’s decision can never be challenged in court?
No.
The constitutional declaration of finality does not necessarily exclude judicial review in appropriate circumstances.
Is Article 103 used to decide whether a person was validly elected?
Not generally.
Article 103 concerns whether a member has become subject to a disqualification under Article 102(1). Election disputes are governed by the applicable electoral law.
Article at a Glance
| Point | Position |
|---|---|
| Article | Article 103 |
| Subject | Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members |
| Applies to | Members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha |
| Disqualifications covered | Article 102(1) |
| Decision-making authority | President |
| Required constitutional input | Election Commission’s opinion |
| President’s discretion after opinion | Must act according to the Election Commission’s opinion |
| Status of President’s decision | Declared final by Article 103(1) |
| Tenth Schedule disqualification | Governed by Tenth Schedule mechanism |
| Related provision | Article 102 |
| Related vacation provision | Article 101 |
| Related penalty | Article 104 |
Quick Revision
- Article 103 deals with the decision on questions of disqualification of members of Parliament.
- It applies to members of either House of Parliament.
- It concerns only the disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1).
- The question is referred to the President.
- Before deciding, the President must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission.
- The President must act according to the Election Commission’s opinion.
- Article 103(1) declares the President’s decision final.
- Article 103 does not provide the decision-making mechanism for Tenth Schedule anti-defection disqualification.
- Article 102 provides the substantive grounds of disqualification.
- Article 101 deals with vacation of seats.
- Article 104 provides a penalty for sitting or voting in specified circumstances while not qualified or disqualified.
- Article 103 does not itself create a new ground of disqualification.
- The Election Commission’s role under Article 103 is constitutionally substantive because the President is required to act according to its opinion.
Conclusion
Article 103 establishes a specialised constitutional mechanism for determining whether a member of Parliament has incurred a disqualification under Article 102(1). Although the formal decision rests with the President, the Constitution requires the President to obtain the Election Commission’s opinion and to act according to it. The provision therefore combines presidential decision-making with the independent constitutional role of the Election Commission, while keeping Article 103 distinct from the separate mechanism applicable to anti-defection disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
