SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Alok Aradhe, S. Vishwajith Shetty, JJ.
Sri. Lakshmikanta K & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 4457 of 2022 (Lb-Ele)
Decided On : 18-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S. Sriranga, Mrs. Sumana Nanand, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Mahendra Gowda, Advocate, Mrs. Vani H, AGA, Mr. S.S. Naganand, Mrs. Kusuma Ranganath, Advocate, Mr. M.N. Kumar, CGC, for the Respondent.

The distinction between elected and nominated members, the non-fundamental nature of the right to vote, and the absence of unreasonable differentiation between them were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Voting Rights - Nominated Councilors - Karnataka Municipalities Act,1964 - Article 243-R(2)(a) - Section 11(1)(b) - Section 42(2) - Rules 3, 4, 8 - Meeting for Election of President and Vice-President - Validity of Proviso - Constitutional Validity - Right to Vote - Distinction between Elected and Nominated Members

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, nominated councilors of Malur Town Municipal Council, sought the right to vote in the election for the post of President/ Vice President under Section 42(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. They challenged the validity of Section 11(1)(b) of the Act and the Constitutional validity of proviso to Article 243-R(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, claiming it violated Article 14 and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the nominated and elected members cannot be treated as belonging to the same class, and there was no unreasonable differentiation between them. The right to vote is not a fundamental right, and Article 243R(2)(a) does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The challenge to the validity of Article 243R(2)(a) and Section 11(1)(b) failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Issues: Validity of Section 11(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Constitutional validity of proviso to Article 243-R(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. Right of nominated councilors to vote in the election for the post of President/ Vice President.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between elected and nominated members, holding that the right to vote is not a fundamental right and that there was no unreasonable differentiation between them. The court also noted the absence of pleading on the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution, leading to the rejection of the challenge to Article 243R(2)(a).

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the challenge to the validity of Section 11(1)(b) of the Act and the Constitutional validity of proviso to Article 243-R(2)(a) of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

1. The petitioners who are nominated councilors of Malur Town Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council' for short) in this petition have prayed for the following reliefs:

    (i) Call for records pertaining to Letter bearing NO.ELN/CR/32/2020-21 dated 22.12.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent (Annexure C)

    (ii) Declare that the petitioners as nominated councilors are entitled to cast their vote in the election for the post of President/ Vice President under Section 42(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,1964

    (iii) Declare that the votes cast by the Petitioners in election held on 30.12.2021 for the post of President in Respondent No.3 Council as valid and sustainable in law. In the alternative

    (iv) Declare that the proviso to Section 11(1) (b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is unconstitutional.

    Or read down the proviso to Section 11(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 as not applying to elections to the post of President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council held under Section 42(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the rules framed thereunder.

    (v) Declare that the proviso to Article 243-R (2)(a) of the Constitution of India is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution.

    Or read down the proviso to Article 243-R (2)(a) of the Constitution as not applying to the post of President and the vice president of the Municipal Council held under Section 42(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the rules framed there under.

    (vi) Declare that the Petitioners are entitled to participate and cast their vote in the election for the post of President, Malur Town Municipal Corporation by virtue of being nominated councilors of the Malur Town Municipal Council under the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

    (vii) Grant cost of these proceedings; and

    (viii) Pass such orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

    2. The Council was constituted on 20.05.2018, which has 29 elected members as well as 4 nominated members and one member of Legislative Assembly. The President of the Council was elected on 20.11.2020. The petitioners were nominated as Councilors of the Council on 27.02.2021. The Tahsildar and Election Officer issued calendar of events by which election to the post of President of the Council was notified and the same was scheduled to be held on 30.12.2021.The petitioners who are the nominated members of the Council, filed a writ petition, in which inter alia declaration was sought to the effect that they are entitled to participate in the process of election to the post of President of the Council. A bench of this court by an interim order dated 29.12.2021 permitted the petitioners to participate in the process of election for the post of President of the Council subject to final decision of the writ petition.

    3. An election was held on 30.12.2021, in which the petitioners cast their votes for the election to the post of the President of the Council. The petitioner in WP No.834/2022 filed an I.A. for impleading on 10.01.2022 in W.P.No.24308/2021, filed by the petitioners. The petitioner in WP No.834/2022 thereafter withdrew the interlocutory application for impleading on 07.02.2022. Thereafter, a bench of this court vide order dated 22.02.2022 permitted the petitioners in W.P.No.24308/2021 to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty as prayed for and extended the interim order for a period of 7 days. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.

    4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners who are nominated councilors of Malur Town Municipal Council have assailed the validity of section 11(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 as well as the Constitutional validity of proviso to Article 243-R(2)(a) of the Constitution of India

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top