In Brief
A Zilla Parishad member elected in January 2020 was disqualified for misusing his office to benefit his son. Shortly after the member's election, his son was registered as a contractor and won a tender for road repairs sanctioned by the Zilla Parishad. The Supreme Court upheld the disqualification, holding that the statute's disqualification clause—prohibiting members from having any 'direct or indirect' financial interest in work 'ordered' by the Zilla Parishad—was intentionally broad to prevent corruption. The timing of the son's contractor registration, his lack of other contracts, and the Zilla Parishad's supervisory role created a prima facie inference of misuse. The Court rejected claims of financial independence and ruled that natural justice did not require a formal hearing when the member had multiple adjournments and submitted written arguments.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.