The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of provisions under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, which provided disqualification for contesting elections based on criminal convictions and charges, and the court's emphasis on the larger public interest in checking criminalization in politics.

( 1 ) BY this group of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 19 (g), 19 (gg) and Proviso (ii) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1999, All the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment.

( 2 ) ON 17-1-2000, one of the petitions came up for admission and a notice was given to the learned Advocate General. The case was posted for final hearing on 27-1-2000. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the State has not filed reply, the petitioner is entitled to interim relief i. e. stay of offending provisions providing disqualification to contest election. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General, submits that he is prepared to argue the petition finally without filing the reply. In view of this, we have taken up the group of writ petitions for final hearing at admission stage.

( 3 ) THE Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, came into force on 23-4-1994, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994. His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan proclaimed the Ordinance as published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 27th December, 1999, known as Rajasthan Rajpatra (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1999, hereinafter referred to the Ordinance of 1999. Para 5 of the Ordinance of 1999 provides with the amendment in S. 19, which is extracted as follows :"5. Amendment of S. 19, Rajasthan Act No. 13 of 1994. In S. 19 of the Principal Act. " (i) and (ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx (iii) for the existing clause (g), the following shall be substituted, namely : " (g) has been convicted of any offence by a competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more, such sentence not having been subsequently reversed or remitted or the offender pardoned. " (iv) After clause (g) and before clause (h), the following new clause shall be inserted, namely : " (gg) is under-trial in the competent Court which has taken cognizance of the offence and framed the charges against him of any offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more. " (v) xxx xxx xxx xxx (vi) for the existing proviso (ii), the following shall be substituted, namely : " (ii) for the purpose of clauses (c), (g) and (k), any person shall become eligible for election after a lapse of six years from the date of his dismissal or the date of conviction, as the case may be. "

( 4 ) THUS, by amendment, a disqualification is provided for contesting the election on the post of panch or Sarpanch to a person, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more by a competent Court or a person against whom, a competent Court has taken cognizance of an offence and framed the charges of an offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more. The proviso (ii) of S. 19 liberates a person from disqualification under clauses (c), (g) and (k) after a lapse of six years from the date of dismissal or the date of conviction as the case may be.

( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. Mahesh Bora, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Mr. P. P. Chaudhary, Mr. G. R. Punia, Mr. R. K. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat.

( 6 ) THE petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions on several grounds, out of which, following have been canvassed before us : (I) There existed no emergency, which called for his Excellency the Governor to promulgate the Ordinance of 1999; (ii) The impugned amendment is hit by Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it provides an unreasonable restriction on a person to contest the election for the post of Panch or Sarpanch

( 7 ) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the right to elect and right to be elected are not fundamental rights and they are only statutory rights. In view of this, there is no question of infringement of any fundamental right of a person. Learned cou