Late Congress MP Rajiv Satav's name cleared in complaint demanding his disqualification

New Delhi: More than six months after his death, President Ram Nath Kovind has said that late Congress leader and Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Satav had not incurred any disqualification from being a Rajya Sabha member "on the ground of holding subsisting contract with a Government company."

"Satav has not incurred disqualification for being a Member of Parliament under article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India read with section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951," said the notification signed by the President on January 6 and published on Friday.

Satav had passed away due to post Covid complications during the pendency of the Petition on May 16, 2021.

The case pertained to September 2020, when Pawan Jagadish Bora and Dattatray Pandurang Anantwar jointly petitioned the President seeking Satav's disqualification on the ground of holding subsisting contract with a Government company (Satav had a distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation. Incidentally, there is no mention anywhere as to who Bora and Anantwar are, what they do and where do they belong to.

The President had referred to their petition to the Election Commission of India in October 2020 seeking its opinion under relevant provision.

The Election Commission sent a letter in February 2021 seeking a reply from Satav, that is when he clarified in his reply in March 2021 that the details of said contract were declared while filing his nomination papers and the present reference case pertained to pre-election disqualification, which was outside the purview of articles 102 & 103 of the Constitution of India.

He had further claimed that the Indian Oil Corporation is not an "appropriate government" and the distributorship agreement with Indian Oil Corporation is not "works" within the meaning of section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Election Commission, in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the relevant judicial precedents, had rejected his claim but the Commission did opine that Indian Oil Corporation is not an "appropriate government" within the meaning of section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

It had concluded that Satav had no subsisting contract with the appropriate government, which would attract disqualification under section 9A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Considering the opinion of the Election Commission, the President, under article 103 of the Constitution of India, held that Satav had not incurred disqualification for being a Member of Parliament under article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India read with section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.