Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 113 - HC - Indian LawsBarring the Associate Members from contesting and getting elected - Regulation 114 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 read with Rule 7 of the Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006 - Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Held that:- The right to contest the election to the Regional Councils, being a statutory right created by the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, it is subject to qualifications and disqualifications prescribed therein. The law in this regard is well settled. In the case of N.P. Ponnuswami [1952 (1) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT] & Jagan Nath [1954 (1) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] held that “A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation.” We may also refer to Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. B.D. Kaushik [2012 (9) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was reiterated that the right to vote is not an absolute right and the right to vote or to contest elections is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but it is a purely statutory right governed by the statute, rules or regulations. It was further held by the Supreme Court in the said decision that the right to contest an election and to vote can always be restricted or abridged, if statute, rules or regulations prescribe so. In the light of the above-noticed settled principle of law, the petitioners can neither claim an absolute right to stand for election to the Regional Councils nor contend that their right to contest the election is defeated by stipulating that the Fellow Members alone are eligible to stand for election to the Regional Councils. Having regard to the admitted fact that the Fellow Members belong to a different class and that even according to the petitioners the Fellow Members are more experienced and knowledgeable, the impugned provisions in making only the Fellow Members eligible to stand for election to Regional Councils cannot be held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. - Decided against the appellant.
|