A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of the Parliament if she/he 1. holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office exempted by the Parliament by law 2. is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court 3. remains absent from all meetings of the House for a period of 60 days without the permission of the House

1. Qualifications for Parliamentary Membership (basic)

To represent the people of India in the 'Temple of Democracy,' an individual must meet specific foundational criteria. These criteria are divided into two categories: those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India (under Article 84) and additional requirements prescribed by Parliament through legislation Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Union Legislature, p.246.

First, the Constitutional Qualifications act as the primary eligibility filter. A person must be a citizen of India and must subscribe to an oath or affirmation before a person authorized by the Election Commission. In this oath, the candidate swears to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The age requirement varies depending on the House, reflecting the different roles each House plays in our federal structure Indian Polity, Parliament, p.226:

Feature	Lok Sabha (House of the People)	Rajya Sabha (Council of States)
Minimum Age	25 years	30 years
Reasoning	Direct representation; requires youthful energy.	House of Elders; requires mature deliberation.

Second, the Constitution gave Parliament the power to add more qualifications. Under the Representation of the People Act (1951), a candidate must be registered as an elector (voter) for a parliamentary constituency. It is a common misconception that a Rajya Sabha candidate must be a voter in the specific state they represent; however, since 2003, a candidate can be a voter in any parliamentary constituency in India and still contest for a Rajya Sabha seat from any state Indian Polity, Parliament, p.226.

Sources: Indian Polity, Parliament, p.226; Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Union Legislature, p.246

2. Constitutional Disqualifications (Article 102) (basic)

Concept: Constitutional Disqualifications (Article 102)

3. Decoding the 'Office of Profit' Concept (intermediate)

The concept of an 'Office of Profit' is a fundamental safeguard designed to protect the independence of our legislators. Under Article 102(1) for Parliament and Article 191(1) for State Legislatures, a person is disqualified from being a member if they hold any office of profit under the Union or State government, unless that office is specifically exempted by law. The primary intent is the separation of powers: an MP or MLA should not be under any obligation to the Executive branch, which might influence their legislative judgment through the offer of salaries, perks, or positions of power Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 23, p.226. Crucially, the Constitution of India does not define what constitutes an 'Office of Profit.' This lack of a formal definition has led to significant judicial interpretation. To provide clarity, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 was enacted. This Act lists specific positions—such as Ministers, certain committee heads, and chairs of statutory bodies—that are exempt from being treated as offices of profit. This law has been amended several times to expand or contract the list of exempted posts based on administrative requirements Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), World Constitutions, p.757. In the absence of a constitutional definition, the courts have developed a 'test' to identify such offices. It is not just about receiving a salary; it is about the degree of government control. For example, the Vice-President is also prohibited from holding any other office of profit to ensure the neutrality of the high office Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Vice-President, p.205. Generally, if the government has the power to appoint, remove, and pay the individual, or if the position grants the holder significant patronage or influence, it is likely to be viewed as an office of profit.

Criteria	Indicators of an 'Office of Profit'
Appointing Authority	The Government has the power to appoint the individual.
Removal Power	The Government can dismiss the person from the position.
Remuneration	The person receives a salary, honorarium, or even just 'compensatory allowances.'
Patronage	The office holder can exercise influence or grant favors.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 23: Parliament, p.226; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), World Constitutions, p.757; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Vice-President, p.205

4. Statutory Disqualifications: RPA 1951 (intermediate)

While the Constitution of India provides the foundational grounds for disqualification under Article 102, it also empowers Parliament to add further grounds through legislation. This led to the enactment of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. While the RPA 1950 deals primarily with the preparation of electoral rolls and delimitation, the RPA 1951 focuses on the actual conduct of elections and the qualifications/disqualifications of candidates Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Election Laws, p.579. These statutory grounds are crucial because they target the moral and administrative integrity of a representative.

Under the RPA 1951, a person is disqualified from being a Member of Parliament if they have been convicted of any offence resulting in imprisonment for two or more years. Notably, being held under preventive detention does not trigger this disqualification. Other key grounds include failing to lodge an account of election expenses within the stipulated time, having a subsisting interest in government contracts, works, or services, and being dismissed from government service for corruption or disloyalty to the State Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Parliament, p.227. Furthermore, the Act bars those found guilty of corrupt practices in elections or those who promote enmity between different groups.

A landmark shift in these rules occurred in 2013 when the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA 1951. Previously, convicted MPs/MLAs were given a three-month grace period to appeal before being disqualified. Now, disqualification is immediate upon conviction for specified offences, regardless of whether an appeal is pending Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.25. Regarding the decision-making process for these statutory grounds, the President holds the final authority, but they are constitutionally bound to obtain and act according to the opinion of the Election Commission Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Parliament, p.227.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Election Laws, p.579; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Parliament, p.227; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.25

5. Disqualification on Grounds of Defection (intermediate)

In the previous hops, we discussed general disqualifications under Article 102. However, there is a specialized set of rules to prevent 'political horse-trading' and maintain party discipline, known as the Anti-Defection Law. This was constitutionalized via the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985, which added the Tenth Schedule to our Constitution Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Anti-Defection Law, p.597. Unlike other disqualifications where the President decides on the advice of the Election Commission, the decision on defection is made by the Presiding Officer (Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha).

A member of Parliament incurs disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in four primary scenarios:

• Member of a Political Party: If they voluntarily give up their party membership or vote/abstain in the House contrary to the directions (whip) issued by their party without prior permission.
• Independent Members: If an elected member who was not sponsored by any party joins a political party after the election.
• Nominated Members: If a nominated member joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date they take their seat.

It is important to note that the 91st Amendment Act of 2003 strengthened this law by removing the protection previously given to 'splits' (where one-third of a party could break away). Now, only a 'merger' involving two-thirds of the members is protected from disqualification Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Anti-Defection Law, p.597.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Anti-Defection Law, p.597

6. Vacation of Seats and Absence (Article 101) (exam-level)

In our journey through the composition of Parliament, we must understand not just how members enter the House, but also how they might be required to leave it. Under Article 101 of the Constitution, a seat in either House can become vacant through several specific legal avenues: double membership, disqualification, resignation, or prolonged absence.

One of the most frequent causes of vacation is Disqualification. If a member becomes subject to any disqualifications mentioned in Article 102(1), such as holding an Office of Profit, being of unsound mind (as declared by a competent court), or being an undischarged insolvent, their seat immediately becomes vacant M. Laxmikanth, Parliament, p.228. Additionally, a member can be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). While the President decides on Article 102 disqualifications (after consulting the Election Commission), the Presiding Officer of the House decides on defection cases D.D. Basu, The Union Legislature, p.247.

A unique provision is the Vacation by Absence under Article 101(4). If a member is absent from all meetings of the House for a continuous period of 60 days without the House's permission, the House may declare the seat vacant. It is important to note that this is not automatic; the House must take the step to declare it so. Furthermore, when calculating these 60 days, any period during which the House is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days is excluded from the count.

The rules regarding Double Membership are also quite strict to ensure a person doesn't occupy two seats simultaneously:

Scenario	Consequence/Requirement
Elected to both Houses of Parliament	Must intimate within 10 days which House they wish to serve in; otherwise, the seat in Rajya Sabha becomes vacant.
Sitting member of one House elected to the other	Seat in the first House becomes vacant.
Elected to both Parliament and State Legislature	Must resign from the State Legislature within 14 days, or the Parliament seat becomes vacant.

Sources: Indian Polity, Parliament, p.228; Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Union Legislature, p.247

7. Deciding Authority for Disqualifications (exam-level)

When a Member of Parliament (MP) faces disqualification, the authority empowered to take the final call depends entirely on the legal grounds of that disqualification. Our Constitution creates a clear divide between 'general' disqualifications and those specifically related to 'defection'. For general disqualifications—such as holding an Office of Profit, being of unsound mind, being an undischarged insolvent, or failing to lodge election expenses—the power rests with the President of India. However, the President does not act in a vacuum; he must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission (EC) and is constitutionally bound to act according to that opinion Indian Polity, Parliament, p.227.

In contrast, if an MP is accused of defection under the Tenth Schedule (e.g., voluntarily giving up party membership or voting against party whips), the deciding authority is the Presiding Officer of the House—the Speaker for the Lok Sabha and the Chairman for the Rajya Sabha Indian Polity, Anti-Defection Law, p.598. While the law originally intended for the Presiding Officer's decision to be final and beyond the reach of courts, the Supreme Court ruled in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992) that this decision is indeed subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides or perversity Indian Polity, State Legislature, p.338.

Grounds for Disqualification	Deciding Authority	Requirement/Constraint
Constitutional (Art 102) & RPA 1951 (e.g., Office of Profit, Corrupt Practices)	President of India	Must act as per the Election Commission's opinion.
Anti-Defection (Tenth Schedule)	Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman)	Subject to Judicial Review by High Courts/Supreme Court.
Absence from House for 60+ days	The House itself	The House may declare the seat vacant.

Sources: Indian Polity, Parliament, p.227; Indian Polity, Anti-Defection Law, p.598; Indian Polity, State Legislature, p.338

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question brings together the building blocks you have just mastered regarding Parliamentary Membership and the Constitutional safeguards that ensure the integrity of our legislative bodies. To solve this, you must apply your knowledge of Article 102 (Disqualifications) and Article 101 (Vacation of Seats). While Statement 1 (Office of Profit) and Statement 2 (Unsound Mind) are explicitly listed under the grounds for disqualification in the Constitution, Statement 3 (60-day absence) is technically a ground for vacation of a seat. However, in the holistic view of the UPSC, these criteria collectively define the legal eligibility for a person to continue 'being' a member of the House.

As a coach, I want you to look at the phrasing: "chosen as, and for being." Statements 1 and 2 are threshold disqualifications that prevent someone from even contesting or entering the House. Statement 3 is a functional disqualification—once a member is elected, they must fulfill their parliamentary duties. If they fail to attend for 60 days without permission, the House has the power to declare the seat vacant. Therefore, when evaluating the options, Option (C) 1, 2 and 3 is the only choice that captures the full legal spectrum of why an individual would be barred from maintaining their status as a Member of Parliament.

The trap here lies in being too pedantic with the terminology. A student might correctly identify that Statement 3 is under Article 101 and exclude it, falling for Option (A). However, UPSC often tests the functional application of the law rather than just the article numbers. As explained in Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, all three conditions are valid legal hurdles that result in the loss of membership. Options (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect because they are under-inclusive, failing to account for the total set of conditions that the Constitution and Parliamentary law impose on our representatives.