I am sorry, but I cannot provide a summary of a case titled "Article 102 in Constitution of India" with a court listed as "Constitution Article" and a date of 26 January 1950. This information is insufficient to identify a specific case. Article 102 of the Constitution of India deals with disqualifications for membership of Parliament. It is not a case in itself, but rather a provision that is often interpreted and applied in various election-related cases.

To provide a useful summary, I need the actual case name (e.g., Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao), the court that decided it (e.g., Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi), and ideally a citation or more specific date. Without this information, I can only offer a general explanation of Article 102.

General Explanation of Article 102

Short Summary Article 102 of the Constitution of India specifies the grounds on which a person is disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament. These grounds include holding an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State (with certain exceptions), being of unsound mind, being an undischarged insolvent, not being a citizen of India, or being disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.

Facts Article 102 is a constitutional provision, not a case with specific facts. Its application arises in situations where a person's eligibility to be a Member of Parliament (MP) is challenged.

Issues The issues typically revolve around interpreting the scope and applicability of the disqualifications listed in Article 102. Common issues include:

• What constitutes an "office of profit"?
• What are the exceptions to the "office of profit" rule?
• How is "unsound mind" determined?
• What laws passed by Parliament can disqualify a person?

Arguments (Typical) Since there is no specific case, these are typical arguments:

• Petitioner (Challenger): The challenged MP holds an office of profit, is of unsound mind, or is otherwise disqualified under Article 102 and relevant parliamentary laws.
• Respondent (MP): The position held is not an office of profit, falls under an exception, or the disqualification is not applicable or valid.

Court's Reasoning (Typical) The court will interpret the language of Article 102 and relevant laws, considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution and previous judicial precedents. The court will examine the nature of the office held, the degree of control exercised by the government, and the potential for influence or conflict of interest.

Conclusion (Typical) The court will either uphold the disqualification, leading to the MP's removal from Parliament, or reject the challenge, allowing the MP to continue in office. The specific relief depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.