By the Court.—These three writ petitions in the nature of public interest litigation have been filed, one by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) through its organising Secretary of the U.P. Chapter, the other by one Sri Abdul Jabbar an advocate of the Civil Court Mathura and the third by an organisation known as U.P. State Coordination Committee of NAPM praying for declaring Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities (Election of Members, Corporators, Chairmen and Mayors) Rules, 2010 as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and also ultra vires to the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959.

2. We may at the outset quote Rule 4 of the said rules in order to project an understanding of the issue that has been raised on behalf of the petitioners.

“Rule 4. (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of the election of the corporators, members, chairmen and mayors or municipalities conducted in accordance with provisions of these rules.

(2) The election to the post of members, corporator chairperson and mayor of the municipalities shall not be contested on the basis of political parties.”

3. The issue raised is therefore confined to elections of the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities which are institutions of self-governance at the Urban Level. The elections to the office of Corporators and Chairpersons are held under the provisions of the aforesaid two acts and in order to give effect to the said provisions, rules have been framed as referred to hereinabove.

4. It is undisputed that no such provision was earlier existing either in the Act or in the rules, preventing the participation of candidates of political parties in relation to elections of the Municipal Corporations or Municipalities. The introduction of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 4 declaring that the election to the post of members, corporators, chairpersons and mayors shall not be contested on the basis of political parties, has led to the filing of these writ petitions, seriously contending that participative democracy, which is the essence of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution, shall be jeopardised and such a provision is constitutionally invalid as it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) read with Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India. It also violates the provisions of autonomy as entrusted to the municipalities under Part IX-A of the Constitution.

5. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain learned Senior Counsel advanced his submissions with the help of a comparative chart of the relevant provisions of the Constitution to contend that Municipalities are constitutional manifestations of governance in the same way at the local level, as are the State legislatures at the State Level and the Parliament at the level of the Union. He submits that these constitutional provisions were brought about also in respect of a village panchayats realising that there has to be a complete autonomy in matters of civil governance of society into the hands of the local bodies, which directly allows the people to have their say in the governance of the society in which they live. This constitutional goal according to Mr. Jain can be effectively realised if people are allowed complete freedom to choose their own representatives, and for the said purpose the political parties should be allowed to have their say, as it is the political parties which really make people aware of the political rights that they possess under the Constitution. He submits that in order to choose a representative the electorate always has in mind the idea of development through self-governance, and for that purpose the voter or the elector always has in mind to elect the right person who may project his point of view of governance and development. This can be achieved according to Sri Jain by educating the masses through a collective thought process for