LexRAJBALA & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1106
RAJBALA & OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA& OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 671 of2015)
DECEMBER 10, 2015
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY
MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
c
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [As amended by
Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015]:
s.175(1)(t) and (u) [As inserted by Haryana Panchayati
Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015} - Constitutional validity of -
D Held: Clauses (t) and (u) of s.175(1) are intravires the
Constitution - Indebtedness/ insolvency is recognized as a
factor which is incompatible in certain circumstances with the
right to hold an elected office under the Constitution as is
evident from Articles 102(1)(c), 191(1)(c), 58(1)(c) and 66
E (1)(c) of the Constitution - Insolvency is a field over which
both the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have
legislative competence concurrently to make laws as it is one
of the topics indicated under Entry 9, List Ill of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950-
F Arts.58(1)(c) and 66 (1)(c), 102 (1)(c) and 191(1)(c); VII
Schedule, List Ill, Entry 9.
s.175(1)(v) [As inserted by Haryana Panchayati Raj
(Amendment) Act 2015] - Constitutional validity of- Held:
G
The impugned provision creates two classes by virtue of
educational qualification - The object of such classification
is to ensure that the members of Panchayat have basic
education enabling them to discharge various duties - The
object sought to be achieved cannot be said to be irrational
H
1106
RAJ BALA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
1107
or illegal or unconnected with the scheme and purpose of A
the Act or the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution - Thus
the classification is based on intelligible differentia, is
'
reasonable· and has a reasonable nexus with the object
sought to be achieved - Hence the same is constitutional -
Constitution of India, 1950--Art. 14 and Part IX.
8
s. 175(1 )(w) {As inserted by Haryana Panchayati Raj
(Amendment) Act, 2015)- Constitutional validity of- Held:
Disqualifying a person from contesting Panchayat election,
if such person has no functional toilet at residence, cannot C
be said to be unconstitutional - Stipulation by legislature that
those who are not following basic norms of hygiene are
ineligible to become administrators of civic body, such a
policy can neither be said to create a class based on
intelligible criteria nor can such classification be said to be 0
unconnected with the object sought to be achieved by the
Act- Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 14 and Part IX.
Election Laws:
Right to vote - Nature of - Held: Right to vote is a
constitutional right- It is not a statutory right pure and simple.
E
Right to contest election - Every person entitled to be a
voter by virtue of declaration u/Art. 326 is not automatically F
entitled to contest in any of the elections - Certain further
restrictions are imposed on a voter's right to contest elections
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 326, 84, 173, 102 and
191.
'Right to vote' and 'right to contest' an election to a
Panchayat- Nature of- Held: Such rights are constitutional
rights subsequent to introduction of Part IX of the Constitution
-
Both the rights can be curtailed! regulated by the
G
appropriate legislature directly.
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A
Right to vote and right to contest elections - Distinction
B
between - Discussed.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Arts. 84; 173, 102 and 191 -
'Qualifications' and
'Disqualifications' for membership of 'Parliament' and 'State
Legislature' - Distinction between - Held: There is no legal
distinction between the two expressions.
c
Part IX, Art.2438, 243F- Right to contest a Panchayat
election- Qualifications and Disqualifications for- Held: Part
IX of the Consltitution is silent about 'qualification' required
for a candidate for election to Panchayat- Constitution only
prescribes 'disqualifications' for membership of Panchayats
0
-
'Qualifications' and 'Disqualifications relevant for
membership of the Legislature are equally applicable to the
membership of Panchayats.
Judicial Review - Examination of constitutional validity
E of legislation - Power of Supreme Court - Held: It is not
permissible for the Court to declare a statute unconstitutional
on the ground of its arbitrariness - Courts do not examine
the wisdom of legislative choices unless the legislation is
otherwise violative of sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.