सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 103

Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members

Why this exists

The Constitution makers needed a clear, neutral process to handle disputes over an MP's continuing eligibility after they've already been elected (as opposed to disputes at election time, which go through election petitions in courts). Putting the President formally in charge, but tying the decision to the Election Commission's expert opinion, was meant to combine constitutional authority with independent, non-partisan fact-finding—keeping the process above ordinary political or executive interference.

How courts read it

The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 103 applies specifically to sitting members whose disqualification is alleged to have arisen after their election, distinguishing it from pre-election disputes (handled separately) and from disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), which is decided by the Speaker or Chairman rather than the President. Courts have also treated the President's decision as effectively bound by the Election Commission's opinion, since clause (2) requires the President to 'act according to' that opinion, though the process remains open to judicial review in appropriate cases.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: The President can personally decide an MP's disqualification however they wish.
    Fact: Clause (2) requires the President to obtain the Election Commission's opinion and act according to it, so the decision is effectively guided by the Commission, not the President's personal judgment.
  • Myth: Article 103 covers all cases of MPs losing their seats, including defection.
    Fact: Disqualification for defection under the Tenth Schedule is decided separately by the Speaker or Chairman of the House, not by the President under Article 103.