Haryana Municipal Act Amendment Upheld: State Election Commission's Power to Remove Disqualified Members Valid

Haryana High Court Upholds State Election Commission's Power to Remove Disqualified Municipal Members

Chandigarh - The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2018, which empowers the State Election Commission to remove elected Presidents or members of municipal bodies if they are found to be disqualified at the time of their election. Justice SureshwarThakur presided over the case, delivering a judgment that upholds the legislative competence of the Haryana State Legislative Assembly to enact such provisions.

Case Background

The petitioner, the elected President of the Municipal Committee, Assandh, had approached the High Court seeking to quash the Amendment Act and a subsequent show cause notice issued by the State Election Commission. The notice was prompted by complaints alleging that the petitioner possessed an invalid matriculation certificate at the time of nomination, thus incurring disqualification under Section 13A of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, and Rule 21 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978.

The petitioner argued that Section 13I of the amended Act, which grants the State Election Commission the power to remove disqualified members, is ultra vires (beyond legal power) and contradicts Rule 85 of the 1978 Rules. Rule 85 stipulates that election disputes should be resolved through election petitions before an Election Tribunal. The petitioner contended that empowering the State Election Commission to remove elected members undermines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal and violates Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that election disputes be addressed through election petitions.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel:

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 13I of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, unduly empowers the State Election Commission, thus circumventing the established process of challenging elections through election petitions as per Rule 85 of the Haryana Municipal Elections Rules, 1978. Reliance was placed on Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, which bars court interference in election matters except through election petitions. It was submitted that the amendment is in conflict with this constitutional provision and the spirit of fair election dispute resolution. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the show cause notice, arguing it was based on a preliminary inquiry conducted without his participation, violating the principles of natural justice.

Court's Reasoning and Decision:

Justice Thakur rejected the petitioner's submissions, asserting that the Haryana State Legislative Assembly acted within its legislative competence under Article 243V of the Constitution of India. Article 243V explicitly allows the State Legislature to enact laws determining disqualifications for municipal membership and to designate an authority for deciding questions of disqualification.

The Court stated, "A reading of the contemplations made therein, reveals that when any democratically elected person invites any statutory disqualification, thus for being elected as a member of the Municipality concerned, thereupon the (supra) controversy is amenable for a decision becoming recorded thereon, but only by an authority as becomes created through a valid legislation becoming passed by the State Legislature concerned."

The judgment clarified that Section 13I, introduced through the Amendment Act, is a valid exercise of this legislative power. The Court reasoned that this provision does not inherently conflict with Rule 85. Instead, it offers an alternative, complementary remedy.

"Significantly, also a duo of remedies are preserved to the aggrieved i.e. one under the impugned amendment and the other through recoursings being made to Rule 85 of the Rules of 1978, wherebys the choice for opting for one or the other of the duo of (supra) remedies lies with the aggrieved. In other words, the preservation of the dual remedies (supra) rather are but complementary to each other."

The Court dismissed the argument concerning the preliminary inquiry, noting that the show cause notice had already merged into a final removal order by the State Election Commission, which is being challenged in a separate writ petition (CWP-8068-2023).

Implications of the Judgment

The High Court's decision affirms the State Election Commission's authority to address disqualifications of elected municipal representatives under Section 13I of the Haryana Municipal Act. This judgment clarifies that the provision is constitutionally valid and provides an additional mechanism for ensuring the integrity of municipal elections, alongside the traditional route of election petitions. The court emphasized that the existence of dual remedies is permissible and that the State Legislature has the power to create such mechanisms within the framework of the Constitution.

Final Order: The writ petition was dismissed, and both the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2018, and the show cause notice issued to the petitioner were upheld. The court clarified that the validity of the petitioner's removal from office would be adjudicated in the separate writ petition (CWP-8068-2023).