Case Analysis by: Pratikshya P. Beura
Date of judgment: 10 December 2015
Bench: Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 671 of 2015;(2016)1 SCC 463 AIR 2016 SC 33
Introduction:
The verdict by the Supreme Court of India, upholding an amendment by the Haryana government to impose educational prerequisites to contest local body elections runs against democracy. Amendments were made to the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, of 1994 eliminating a huge section of the society by its discriminatory qualifications from contesting the Panchayat elections. The constitutional validity of those amendments was challenged in Rajbala v. State of Haryana SCC[AIR 2016 SC 33] on 10 December 2015, where the Supreme Court said its constitutionality proposing that these amendments satisfied the ‘Classification’ test. By scrutinizing two tests it can be determined whether a provision is constitutionally valid or not; the arbitrariness test and the classification test.
Facts :
● The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, [2015] was passed by Bharatiya janata party. Five more categories of people are stated as incapable of contesting elections for any one of the elected offices under this act. [1]Provisions specifically under challenge are Section 175 (1) (t), (u), (v), and (w). The categories are:
(i)Persons who are charged in criminal cases for punishable offences with imprisonment for not less than ten years.
(ii)Persons who fail to pay their dues, if any, owed by them to either a
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society or District Central Cooperative Bank or District Primary Agricultural Rural Development Bank,
(iii)Persons should have no arrears of electricity bills,
(iv)The required educational qualification should be possessed by the person
(v)A person should have a functional toilet at their place of residence
● Three petitioners claiming to be political activists challenged the act on the grounds of being violative of article 14 of the Indian constitution i.e. the right to equality.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether the Right to contest an election and the Right to vote is a constitutional right or statutory right.
2. Whether the Haryana Panchayati Raj (amendment) Act 2015 is constitutionally valid or not.
3. Whether an Act becomes Unconstitutional if it disqualifies an enormous section of society from contesting elections.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioners challenged the act that it was arbitrary and violative of article 14 and a statute can be declared unconstitutional on this basis, the petitioners relied upon the judgement of the court in [2] Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation& another it was argued that the impugned act will disqualify more than half of the population to contest elections that were eligible.
The most affected will be the poorer sections of society, scheduled castes and women as the majority of them are unlikely to possess the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the act. The two clauses of paying off their debt to cooperative bodies and electricity bills challenged that they impose an unreasonable burden on the voters as the majority of the rural population are agriculturists and are heavily indebted so, this creates an irrelevant classification which has no connection to the objective sought to be achieved by this act. Clause (w) of Section 175(1) which dismisses any person from contesting in an election if such person has no toilet at his place of residence; the petitioners argued that a large number of the rural population are below the poverty line and simply cannot afford the construction of a toilet and to disqualify them on this basis would be unreasonable and discriminatory.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The learned attorney general appearing for the respondents submitted that right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but a statutory right, it can be subject to qualifications and disqualifications under Article 243F which gives power to the state legislature to prescribe prerequisites for contesting election to any panchayat and prescribing prerequisites such as minimum educational qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrelevant.
The learned attorney general also argued that elections are expensive phenomena and no person in debt would contest the elections. In Haryana the agriculture sector is strong enough so, farmers there can lead a life without debt. If a person wants to contest an election he/she is not debarred by any authority to clear all his/her debts and contest the elections. The submission to the last issue was that the government has come up with policies to construct toilets at their residence.
Judgment:
It was held that both the rights- The right to vote and the Right to contest an election are constitutional rights of the citizen. The possession of a minimal education degree by a person contesting a local body election has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved as education is necessary and plays an important role in the development of the country.
It was held that the state had provided enough financial assistance to those who do not have toilets at their place of residence so, section 175(w) of the Act has reasonable nexus and is not contrary to any provision of the constitution. It was also held that Section 175(v) is intra-vires the constitution and is thus constitutionally valid.
Analysis:
In [3] PUCL vs. Union of India a three-judge bench examined the nature of the “Right to vote” and it was held that it is a constitutional right but not a statutory right. In [4] Javed vs. State of Haryana a three-judge bench examined the nature of the “Right to contest” and the learned judge R.C. Lahoti held that the right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common right. It was questioned whether an act can be held unconstitutional on the ground of arbitrariness. In the case [5] McDowell & Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh the issue was raised that the [6] Andhra Pradesh liquor prohibition amendment act 1955, has exempted certain manufacturers and consumers from the ban and the petitioner content it to be arbitrary. The learned judges held that the court can hold an act unconstitutional on the basis that it is violative of fundamental rights and lacks legislative competency. The court cannot strike away an act or piece of legislation just because it is arbitrary and reasonable.
In the case [7] K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Others vs. Union of India and another, "what is a well-settled principle in Indian law that the right to vote and contest election does not have the status of fundamental rights instead, they are in the nature of legal rights..."
In the case of [8] Prabhakar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, there was an ordinance that increased the age of retirement from fifty-five to fifty-eight and later became an act but during the process of amendments and ordinances, some employees were deprived of the benefits of pension. Hence, in this case, it was held that the state legislature is unconstitutional as it has made a classification between the employees of the State Government and reasonable and without any rationale.
Conclusion:
It is conspicuous that the quotes do not dismiss a piece of legislation solely on the basis of arbitrariness; The two conditions to make any act unconstitutional are lack of competency in the legislature and violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred by part 3 of the constitution. The provisions enacted were in the larger public interest and needed. The two rights right to vote and the right to contest an election are merely constitutional and legal rights. Lastly, the court decided the amendment is intra-vires to the constitution. In my opinion, the amendment was a pressing priority because if the society is well governed it would lead to the development of the society as a whole.
References:
[1] The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015. Amendment of section 175 of Haryana Act 11 of 1994
[2] Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682
[3] People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399
[4] Javed vs State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369
[5] State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709
[6] The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 Act No. 17 OF 1995
[7] K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & other v. Union of India & another (2010) 7 SCC 202
Para 77 www.india.gov.in
[8] B. Prabhakar Rao v. the State of AP, 1985 Supp SCC 432