Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1685 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 - whether right to vote or the right to contest an election to any of the constitutional bodies is a constitutional or a statutory right, since the extent to which curtailment or regulation of such right is permissible depends upon the nature of the right - Held that:- A three Judge Bench in PUCL vs. Union of India [2003 (3) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] examined the question regarding nature of "Right to Vote". The learned Judge P.V. Reddi, in his separate opinion, which was concurred by Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, examined this question in great detail and in express terms, answered it holding that the "Right to Vote" is a constitutional right but not merely a statutory right. We are bound by this view taken by a three Judge Bench while deciding this question in this writ petition. Also in Javed vs. State of Haryana [2003 (7) TMI 714 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] examined the question regarding the nature of "Right to Contest" while examining the constitutional validity of certain provisions of The Act. The learned Judge R.C. Lahoti (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held that right to contest an election is neither a Fundamental Right nor a common right. It is a right conferred by statute. His Lordship went on to hold that "at the most, in view of Part IX having been added in the Constitution, a right to contest the election for an office in Panchayat may be said to be a constitutional right. We are bound by this view taken by a three Judge Bench while deciding this question in this writ petition. In the light of aforementioned two authoritative pronouncements, we are of the considered opinion that both the rights namely "Right to Vote" and "Right to Contest" are constitutional rights of the citizen. Keeping in view the powers, authority and the responsibilities of Panchayats as specified in Article 243-G so also the powers given to Panchayats to impose taxes and utilization of funds of the Panchayats as specified in Article 243-H, it is necessary that the elected representative must have some educational background to enable him/her to effectively carry out the functions assigned to Panchyats in Part IX. It is the legislative wisdom to decide as to what should be the minimum qualifications, which should be provided in the Act. No one can dispute that education is must for both men and women as both together make a healthy and educated society. It is an essential tool for a bright future and plays an important role in the development and progress of the country. In view, therefore, Section 175 (v) of the Act is intra vires the Constitution and is thus constitutionally valid. Coming to the question regarding constitutionality of Section 175(w) which provides that if a person has no functional toilet at his place of residence, he/she is disqualified to contest the election. In my view, this provision too has reasonable nexus and does not offend any provision of the Constitution. No grounds much less sustainable grounds available to the petitioners to question the validity of this provision as this provision is enacted essentially in the larger public interest and is indeed the need of the hour to ensure its application all over the country and not confining it to a particular State. Moreover, the State having provided adequate financial assistance to those who do not have toilet facility for construction of toilet, there arise no ground to challenge this provision as being unreasonable in any manner. Section 175 (v) is intra vires the Constitution and is thus constitutionally valid.
|