2015 Supreme(SC) 1296

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Rajbala & Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 671 OF 2015
Decided On : 10-12-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
The permissible extent to which rights can be curtailed depends upon whether the right is Constitutional or statutory.
Right to vote and right to contest both are constitutional rights.
It is not permissible for the Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it is 'arbitrary'.
Clauses (t), (u), (v) and (w) added to section 175(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 by amendment of 2015 are constitutionally valid.

Headnote:Per Chelameswar, J.

       (a) Legal rights – Curtailment or regulation of rights – Permissible extent depends upon nature of the right, whether Constitutional or statutory. (Para 18)

       (b) Election laws – Right to vote – Right to vote of every citizen at an election either to the Lok Sabha or to the Legislative Assembly – Recognised under Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution – It is a constitutional right (Para 23, 33)

       (2003) 4 SCC 399; (2012) 7 SCC 340 – Relied upon

       AIR 1952 SC 64; (1982) 1 SCC 691 – Referred

       (2000) 8 SCC 46; (2010) 7 SCC 202; (1992) 4 SCC 80; (2015) 3 SCC 467 – Distinguished

       © Election Laws – Right to vote and right to contest – Every person entitled to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution of India does not automatically become entitled to contest and election – A voter can contest subject to certain constitutional restrictions and limitations in form of qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament and Legislatures of State – Articles 84 and 173, and 102 and 191 – Constitutional limitations are not required for non-constitutional rights – These Articles authorise the Parliament to prescribe further qualifications and disqualifications – Subject to restrictions every citizen has a constitutional right to elect and to be elected to either Parliament or the State legislatures. (Para 37, 38, 40)

       (2014) 9 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India – Articles 243- D and 243-T, Part IX – Right to contest Panchayat election – Neither a fundamental right nor a common law right – It is s statutory right – At the most, in view of Part IX of Constitution, it may be said to be a constitutional right. (Para 43)

       (2010) 12 SCC 1; (2003) 8 SCC 369 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitution of India – Part IX, Article 243D and 243 T r/w 326 – Right to vote and right to contest at an election to a PANCHAYAT – Constitutional rights subsequent to the introduction of Part IX – Both the rights can be regulated/curtailed by the appropriate Legislature directly. (Para 46, 47)

       (f) Constitutional law – Curtailment of any right emanating from common law, customary law or the constitution – Can be done only by law made by an appropriate Legislative Body – Such law must be consistent with provisions of the Constitution. (Para 48)

       (g) Interpretation of statute – Constitutional validity – Not permissible for the Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it is 'arbitrary'. (Para 69)

       (1996) 3 SCC 709 – Relied upon

       (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1975) Supp SCC 1 – Referred

       (2014) 8 SCC 682; (1995) 1 SCC 732; 1985 (Supp) SCC 432; (1983) 1 SCC 305; (1981) 4 SCC 675 – Distinguished

       (h) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as amended in 2015– Section 175(1) (v) – Educational qualification of Matriculation – Creating two classes – Those eligible to contest elections and those who are not – Provision to ensure that candidates have some basic education for discharging their functions effectively – Cannot be said either based on no intelligible differentia, unreasonable or without a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved – Provision debarring disqualified persons from contesting election – Permissible – Challenge on basis of Article rejected. (Para 85, 87)

       (2012) 9 SCC 310; (2009) 6 SCC 398; (2005) 6 SCC 537; (1994) 6 SCC 282; (1993) 1 SCC 645; (1991) 2 SCC 716; (1974) 1 SCC 19 – Referred

       (i) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as amended in 2015– Section 175(1)(t)(u) – Disqualification for persons defaulting in dues of cooperative bodies and electricity bills – Making indebtedness compatible with right to hold office – Held not unreasonable – Article 102(1)©, Constitution of India – Section 6 and 9, Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 – Justness of such situation within wisdom of legislature – Nothing stops such aspirant from making appropriate arrangement for clearance of the arrears and contest elections – Contention rejected. (Para 92)

       (j) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as amended in 2015 – Section 175(1)(w) – Disqualification for not having functional toilet at his place of residence – With many State schemes, financial constraint in providing toilet not acceptable – Those aspiring to get elected to panchayat and administer them must set an example for others – challenge repelled. (Para 95)

       Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. (Concurring)

       (k) Election law – Right to vote and right to contest – Whether Constitutional right or statutory right – Held, both are constitutional rights of the citizen – a (Para 5,

       (2003) 4 SCC 399; (2003) 8 SCC 369 – Relied upon

       (l) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as amended in 2015 – Section 175 (1)(v) – Minimum qualification for contesting election – Value of education cannot be over-emphasised – The criteria has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved – Article 243-G and 243-H, Constitution of India – Section 175 (1)(v) held intra vires and constitutional. (Para 7, 8, 9, 10)

       (m) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as amended in 2015 – Section 175(1)(w) – Requirement of toilet – Enacted essentially in the larger public interest and is indeed the need of the hour – Held constitutionally valid. (Para 11, 12)

       Facts of the case:

       Clauses (t), (u), (v) and (w) added to section 175(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 by amendment of 2015 are under challenge in this writ petition.

       Result: Writ petition dismissed.