Back
1987 Supreme(AP) 122
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.S.M.QUADRI
M.Peeran Saheb - Appellant
Versus
Special Officer cum Collector - Respondent
Decided On : 02-25-87
The requirement of photo identity cards for voting cannot be enforced in a manner that violates the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Headnote:
ELECTION - MUNICIPALITIES - PHOTO IDENTITY CARDS - REQUIREMENT FOR VOTING - CONSTITUTIONALITY - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - MUSLIM WOMEN VOTERS - RIGHT TO VOTE - RELIGIOUS INJUNCTION AGAINST TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS - CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND VOTING RIGHTS - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
A batch of writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of provisions in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, which required voters in municipal elections to obtain photo identity cards to exercise their franchise. Muslim petitioners, particularly women, objected to being photographed due to religious prohibitions against taking photographs in Islam.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned provisions, insofar as they required Muslim women voters to take photographs to vote or to forgo their right to vote in case of not taking the photo, violated Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of photo identity cards for voting in municipal elections is constitutional. 2. Whether the requirement violates Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. 3. Whether the religious injunction against taking photographs in Islam can be accommodated with the requirement of photo identity cards for voting.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court recognized that the requirement of photo identity cards for voting is a legitimate measure to prevent impersonation and ensure fair conduct of elections. However, it held that this measure cannot be enforced in a manner that violates the fundamental rights of citizens. 2. The court found that the requirement of photo identity cards for voting put Muslim women voters to an election between acting contrary to their religious injunctions or forgoing their right to vote. This, the court held, amounted to a violation of Article 25(1) of the Constitution. 3. The court held that the religious injunction against taking photographs in Islam is an integral part of the religion and cannot be disassociated from it. Therefore, a citizen professing Islam cannot be put to an election between observing the religious practice and forgoing the right to vote.
Final Decision: The court held that the impugned provisions could not be enforced in a manner that violated Article 25(1) of the Constitution. It directed the authorities to ensure that no female voter who is a Purdahanashin lady is obliged to come in public or before male persons to establish her identity. In election booths, female Electoral Officers should be deputed for the purpose of identification.
( 1 ) ORDER :- Elections of the Councillors to the Municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh are governed by Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short act 6 of 1965 ). By S. 2 (8) of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act (for short Act 33 of 1986) S. 12 is inserted in Act 6 of 1965. Under Act 6 of 1965 rules are framed for supply of identity cards to voters which are issued in G. O. Ms. No. 628, M. A. Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Elections) Department, dated 12th Nov. , 1986 (for short the Rules ). Constitutional validity of the provision of Act 33 of 1986 and the Rules requiring the voters to obtain the photo identity cards to enable the electors of the Municipality to exercise franchise, is questioned in a batch of writ petitions. In these writ petitions W. P. M. Ps. are filed requesting suspension of the impugned provisions of Act 33 of 1986 and the Rules. As all these petitions raise a common question of law, they are heard and are being disposed of by common order.
( 2 ) FOR the purpose of these petitions it may not be necessary to state all the facts except to mention that the petitioners in all these petitions are Muslim electors and object to be photo graphed on the ground that taking of photo is prohibited in Islam. It is submitted that under Shariat taking of photographs or pictures by any process of any person is prohibited and is considered to be a religious offence. It is the basic tenets of Muslim Law, particularly women are not permitted to take their photographs and expose their face and other identities to other persons except to their kith and kin. Under the impugned provision one is obliged to produce the identity card to vote. By this process Muslim in general and Muslim women in particular are being deprived of their right to vote in the ensuing Municipal elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh while other persons who are not under such a prohibition will have their voting right intact. It is further submitted that the requirement of photo identity a card is introduced only in regard to the election of the local bodies of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations and not insisted upon in regard to the elections of other local bodies like Gram Panchayats, Mandal Panchayats and Zilla Parishads. This amounts to discrimination and offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, the petitioners prayed that the impugned Act and the Rules be suspended.
( 3 ) THIS court by interim order directed the respondents not to disqualify such of the women voters who on account of custom or otherwise decline to be photographed, for being listed in electoral rolls.
( 4 ) THE respondents filed counter-affidavit along with W. V. M. Ps. to vacate the interim directions, inter alia stating that the Legislature has amended the Act and separate electoral rolls have been prepared for the Municipalities and it was also intensively revised with reference to the qualifying date i. e. , 1-1-1986. It is stated that in the issuance of identity cards for the electors there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional. Such a provision exists in R. 28 of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 issued under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and R. 35 (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It is admitted that a person who could not obtain identity card cannot exercise the franchise or contest the election. The very purpose of identity card is to prevent impersonation at the elections. Municipalities and Corporations are treated as a class apart from the Mandals and Gram Panchayats. To start with, this system has been introduced in cases of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. It is stated that there may not be any scope of impersonation in the cases of Gram Panchayats and Mandal Praja Parishads where the voters can be easily identified unlike the cases of Corporations and the Municipalities where the electorate are large in number in each ward and spre
