Article 243-V

Article 243-V of the Constitution of India lays down the constitutional framework governing the disqualifications for membership in a Municipality. This provision ensures that only individuals who meet prescribed eligibility standards can serve as members of urban local bodies. Introduced by the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, Article 243-V safeguards the integrity, competence, and accountability of municipal governance by setting uniform disqualification norms across states.

Background and Constitutional Context

The 74th Amendment Act, 1992, inserted Part IX-A (Articles 243-P to 243-ZG) into the Constitution, granting constitutional status to Municipalities as institutions of urban local self-government. To ensure that these bodies function efficiently and ethically, Article 243-V specifies eligibility and disqualification criteria for municipal members, mirroring similar provisions for State Legislatures.
The inclusion of Article 243-V was intended to maintain uniform standards of political integrity across all levels of government, ensuring that those who hold municipal office possess the necessary qualifications and moral standing.

General Disqualifications for Membership

Under Article 243-V(1), a person is disqualified from being chosen as, or for being, a member of a Municipality if:

1. Disqualification under laws governing State Legislature elections:The person is disqualified under any law for the time being in force relating to the elections of members to the State Legislature.
   • This means the same grounds that apply to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) — such as unsoundness of mind, insolvency, or conviction for certain offences — also apply to municipal members.
2. Disqualification under laws made by the State Legislature:The person is disqualified under any law made by the State Legislature specifically governing disqualifications for municipal elections.
   • This gives states the power to enact additional disqualifications suited to their local governance contexts.

Thus, Article 243-V establishes a two-tier disqualification system — one based on general election laws and another on specific state legislation.

Exception Regarding Age

A notable feature of Article 243-V is its age exception clause.

• A person shall not be disqualified for being less than 25 years of age if he or she has attained the age of 21 years.
• This provision lowers the minimum age for contesting municipal elections compared to State Legislative Assembly elections, where the minimum age is 25 years under Article 173(b).

This distinction reflects the Constitution’s intent to encourage youth participation in local governance and decision-making processes.

Authority to Decide Questions of Disqualification

Under Article 243-V(2), if any question arises regarding the disqualification of a member, it is referred to an authority designated by the State Legislature.

• The State Legislature determines the competent authority and the procedure for deciding such disputes.
• Typically, these powers are vested in the State Election Commission or an appointed judicial authority such as a district judge or tribunal.

This provision ensures an institutional mechanism for impartial adjudication of disqualification cases and helps prevent politically motivated decisions.

Legislative Powers of the State

Article 243-V empowers State Legislatures to enact detailed laws concerning disqualifications for municipal membership. These laws often include additional criteria to reflect the administrative and ethical expectations from local representatives.
Common grounds for disqualification under state laws include:

• Holding an office of profit under the government.
• Being of unsound mind or declared insolvent.
• Failure to pay municipal taxes or dues.
• Engaging in corrupt practices or electoral malpractices.
• Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.

By granting legislative flexibility to states, Article 243-V enables the adaptation of disqualification norms to suit local governance realities while maintaining consistency with constitutional principles.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws

Several judicial decisions have elaborated on the scope and application of Article 243-V and related provisions:

• K. K. Verma v. State of Maharashtra (1960): Interpreted the authority of the state to prescribe disqualifications through legislation, emphasising that such powers must conform to constitutional limits and principles of fairness.
• State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977): Recognised the legislative competence of states to define qualifications and disqualifications for local body elections, as long as they do not violate fundamental rights.
• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Though not directly related to municipal disqualifications, the judgment discussed the broader implications of disqualification provisions vis-à-vis the right to privacy and participation in governance.

These judgments collectively affirm that the disqualification framework under Article 243-V must uphold constitutional morality, natural justice, and democratic values.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 243-V aligns closely with several other constitutional provisions concerning elections and eligibility criteria:

• Article 243-F: Prescribes disqualifications for membership in Panchayats.
• Article 173: Defines qualifications for membership of State Legislatures.
• Article 102: Lists disqualifications for membership of Parliament.
• Article 243-ZA: Empowers State Election Commissions to conduct elections for Municipalities.

Together, these provisions create a comprehensive constitutional framework ensuring transparency and ethical conduct across all levels of elected institutions.

Key Features of Article 243-V

• Establishes uniform disqualification criteria across all municipalities within a state.
• Ensures alignment between municipal eligibility norms and legislative standards.
• Empowers states to specify additional disqualifications suited to local contexts.
• Provides a legal mechanism for dispute resolution through an independent authority.
• Encourages youth involvement in governance by lowering the minimum age to 21 years.

Implications and Significance

The implications of Article 243-V extend beyond administrative compliance; it is fundamental to upholding the ethical and democratic standards of local governance.

• Ensures integrity: Prevents unqualified, corrupt, or ineligible individuals from occupying municipal offices.
• Promotes accountability: Enables the removal of members who violate legal or ethical standards.
• Strengthens public confidence: Reinforces citizens’ trust in the transparency and legitimacy of local governments.
• Maintains uniformity: Harmonises state-level disqualification norms with broader constitutional principles.
• Supports youth representation: Opens political opportunities for younger citizens to participate in urban governance.

Examples of State Legislation

Different states have enacted laws defining disqualification criteria under Article 243-V, such as:

• The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949;
• The Kerala Municipality Act, 1994;
• The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920; and
• The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

These Acts typically include detailed clauses covering conflicts of interest, corruption, indebtedness, and failure to perform civic duties.