Rajbala & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors

19. Prior to the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution, the Constitution contemplated elections to the office of the President, Vice-President, the two Houses of the Parliament known as Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha and the State Legislatures. The Legislatures in certain States are bicameral. They are known as Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council while other States are unicameral (only the legislative Assembly). After the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution, PANCHAYATS and Municipal bodies specified under Parts IX & IXA of the Constitution respectively were added to the above-mentioned.

24. However, the learned Attorney General brought to our notice certain observations in some of the judgments to the effect that rights to vote and contest elections are purely statutory. The context and the precedentiary value of those judgments need examination.

Questions No.(i) and (ii) do not arise on the facts of the present case. Therefore, we desist examination of these questions.

The facts of the case are that the age of superannuation of employees of the State of Andhra Pradesh was 55 till the year 1979. In 1979, it was enhanced to 58 years. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in February, 1983 decided to roll back the age of superannuation to 55 years and took appropriate legal steps which eventually culminated in passing of Act 23 of 1984. The said Act came to be amended by Ordinance 24 of 1984, again enhancing the age of superannuation to 58 years which was followed up by Act 3 of 1985. While enhancing the age of superannuation to 58 for the second time by the above-mentioned Ordinance 24 of 1984 and Act 3 of 1985, benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation was given to certain employees who had retired in the interregnum between 20.2.1983 and 23.08.1984; while others were denied such benefit. Prabhakar Rao and others who were denied the benefit challenged the legislation. This Court placing reliance on D.S. Nakara Case concluded that the impugned Act insofar as it denied the benefit to some of the employees who retired in the interregnum between two dates mentioned above was unsustainable and held as follows:-

20 years and above. In other words, dehors the IMPUGNED ACT, 96 lakhs would be eligible to contest elections to various PANCHAYATS subject of course to other qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by law. Of the 96 lakhs, 36 lakhs are illiterate and about 5 lakhs are literate but below primary level of education. The remaining 54.5 lakhs are educated, though the chart does not clearly indicate the exact break-up of the above 54.5 lakhs and their respective educational qualifications i.e. whether they are educated up to primary or middle or matriculation level and above. The said 54.5 lakhs constitute 57% of the rural population who are otherwise eligible to contest PANCHAYATS election by virtue of their being in the age group of 20 years and above. Of the 96 lakhs of rural population, 50 lakhs are men and 46 lakhs are women. Of them, 35 lakhs men, 20 lakhs women are literate above primary level, though exact break-up of educational qualification is not available. Even if we assume all the 20 lakhs women are matriculate and, therefore, eligible to contest any election under THE ACT, they would contribute less than 50% of the otherwise eligible women.

88. We shall now deal with the challenge to clauses (t) and (v) of Section 175(1) of THE ACT. These two clauses disqualify persons who are in arrears of amounts to cooperative bodies specified in clause (t) and the electricity bills. These provisions are challenged on the ground that they impose unreasonable burden on voters who are otherwise eligible to contest the election and therefore create an artificial and unreasonable classification which has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the ACT.

96. For the above-mentioned reasons, we see no merit in this writ petition, and the same is dismissed.

5. In the light of aforementioned two authoritative pronouncements, we are of the considered opinion that both the rights namely "Right to Vote"

13. In the light of the foregoing discussion agreeing with my learned brother, I also hold that Section 175 (v) is intra vires the Constitution and is thus constitutionally valid.

14. In my view, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, interim order stands vacated.

(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed-

(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution:

For complete discussion - see paras 86 to 104.

[43] “(v) has not passed matriculation examination or its equivalent examination from any recognized institution/board:

XXI. Social Welfare including Welfare of the Handicapped and Mentally Retarded-

(1) Participation in the implementation of the social welfare programmes including welfare of the handicapped, mentally retarded and destitute.

[48] Articles 102(1)(c) and 191(1)(c).

[49] Article 102. Disqualifications for membership.—(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament – **** **** **** **** **** ****

(c) – if he is an undischarged insolvent;

(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent.

he departs or remains out of the territories to which this Act extends;

he departs from his dwelling-house or usual place of business or otherwise absents himself;

he secludes himself so as to deprive his creditors of the means of communicating with him;

(f) if he petitions to be adjudged an insolvent under the provisions of this Act;

(h)  if he is imprisoned in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money.

in a case where such application is allowed by the District Court, he shall not be deemed to have committed an act of insolvency under this sub- section; and in a case where such application is rejected by the District Court, he shall be deemed to have committed an act of insolvency under this sub- section on the date of rejection of the application or the expiry of the period specified in the insolvency notice for its compliance, whichever is later:

in a case where such application is allowed by the Court, he shall not be deemed to have committed an act of insolvency under this sub- section; and in a case where such application is rejected by the Court, he shall be deemed to have committed an act of insolvency under this sub- section on the date of rejection of the application or the expiry of the period specified in the insolvency notice for its compliance, whichever is later: