The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha had previously contested elections, such a circumstance by itself would not render the person ineligible for nomination under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the categories specified in Article 80(3) are illustrative in nature and do not exclude persons having political backgrounds, so long as such persons possess special knowledge or practical experience related to the fields contemplated under the provision.

The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking quashing of the nomination of a nominated Rajya Sabha member under Article 80(3) of the Constitution on the ground that the nominee allegedly did not possess the special knowledge or practical experience contemplated under the provision and was primarily a political functionary.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed: “The mere circumstance that a nominated member has previously contested elections does not, by itself, render such person ineligible for nomination under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench further observed: “The categories specified in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India are broad in their amplitude and do not exclude a person with a political background, provided such person otherwise possesses special knowledge or practical experience relatable, inter alia, to the field of social service.”

Advocate Vineeth S. Varkalavila appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner, a practising advocate before the Supreme Court of India, instituted the present Public Interest Litigation challenging the nomination of a Rajya Sabha member under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India. The petition sought quashing of the nomination and a declaration that the nominee allegedly did not possess the “special knowledge or practical experience” required under Article 80(3).

The petitioner contended that Article 80(3) contemplates nomination of eminent persons possessing special knowledge or practical experience in the fields of literature, science, art and social service and argued that the concerned nominee primarily had a political background, having contested Assembly elections and held office within a political party.

It was further argued that the Constituent Assembly Debates reflected the framers’ intention to enrich parliamentary deliberations through eminent specialists and not active politicians. The petitioner also contended that the nomination process under Article 80(3) lacked transparency and objective criteria.

The Union of India opposed the petition and argued that Article 80(3) vests broad constitutional discretion in the President of India and that political service itself could be relatable to social science and social service. The Union further contended that the petition sought judicial review over an inherently evaluative constitutional determination not amenable to interference absent manifest arbitrariness.

Court’s Observation

The High Court extensively examined the scope and nature of Article 80(3) of the Constitution. Referring to the constitutional text, the Court observed that Article 80(3) empowers nomination of persons possessing “special knowledge or practical experience” in literature, science, art and social service.

The Bench observed that the constitutional categories are preceded by the expression “in respect of such matters as the following”, indicating that the specified categories are illustrative and not exhaustive. Referring to Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia v. Union of India (2012), the Court reiterated that the provision is broad in amplitude and capable of including cognate fields relatable to the categories expressly enumerated.

The Court observed: “The categories set out in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India are preceded by the expression ‘in respect of such matters as the following’, which, as held by this Court in Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia (supra), makes it clear that the categories are illustrative and not exhaustive.”

The Bench further held that Article 80(3) confers broad constitutional discretion and that courts cannot judicially supplement the constitutional text by reading additional procedural requirements into the provision where none exist.

In this regard, the Court observed: “The constitutional text of Article 80 of the Constitution of India neither prescribes any specific procedure for identifying persons to be nominated by the Hon’ble President of India, nor does it furnish any further definitional elaboration of the categories enumerated in Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.”

The High Court further observed that in the absence of any constitutional ambiguity, vagueness or manifest arbitrariness, courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot import additional conditions or mechanisms into Article 80(3).

The Court observed: “This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot read into Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India additional requirements or mechanisms that the constitutional text itself does not provide.”

The Bench also dealt with the argument that active politicians should stand excluded from nomination under Article 80(3). Rejecting the contention, the Court held that political background alone cannot disqualify a person from nomination so long as the individual possesses special knowledge or practical experience related to the constitutionally contemplated fields.

The Court further observed that the expressions “special knowledge” and “practical experience” are inherently evaluative in nature and constitutional courts would not sit in appeal over such assessment once constitutional discretion has been exercised.

The Court remarked: “The expressions ‘special knowledge’ and ‘practical experience’ are inherently evaluative in character and, once the constitutional discretion has been exercised, this Court would not sit in appeal over such assessment unless the nomination bears no reasonable nexus whatsoever with the categories contemplated under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.”

The High Court additionally found that the allegations raised by the petitioner were speculative and unsupported by any substantive material demonstrating the absence of qualifications necessary for nomination under Article 80(3).

The Court observed: “The allegations levelled by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 3 are, therefore, unsubstantiated and bald.”

Referring again to Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia (2012), the Court reiterated that the constitutional purpose underlying nomination under Article 80(3) is to enable distinguished individuals to enrich parliamentary debates through their expertise and experience.

The Court quoted the earlier judgment observing: “The framers of the Constitution of India, by adopting the principle of nomination in Rajya Sabha, ensured that the nation receives the services of the most distinguished persons of the country who have earned distinction in their field of activity.”

The Bench ultimately held that no material had been placed before the Court to demonstrate that the nominated member lacked distinction in his field or would be incapable of enriching parliamentary deliberations through expertise and knowledge.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court held that the challenge to the Rajya Sabha nomination was devoid of merit and that prior electoral participation or political background alone cannot render a nominated member ineligible under Article 80(3) of the Constitution of India.

The Court further held that the petitioner had failed to place any material establishing that the nominated member lacked special knowledge or practical experience related to the fields contemplated under Article 80(3). Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Subhash Theekkadan v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4836-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Vineeth S. Varkalavila and Dr M.P. Raju, along with the petitioner appearing in person.

Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma; CGSCs Manisha Agrawal Narain, Ankur Mittal and Amit Gupta; Advocates Ipshita Dutta, Rabaica Jaishwal, Naman, Shubham Sharma and Yashwardhan Sharma.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: