SMT. BHARATI REDDY versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 17-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 8 S.C.R. 859 
SM~BHARATIREDDY 
v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10587 of 2017) 
AUGUST 17,2017 
A 
B 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.) 
Panchayats - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj 
Act, 1993 - s.177 - Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of 
Adhyaksha and Upadhayaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 1994 -
C 
r. 7 - Zilla Panchayat Elections - Election of. 'Adhayaksha ', 
challenged u!Art.226 by the voters, who are not the members of the 
Zilla Panchayat - Maintainability of - Single Judge ofHigh Court 
dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability in view 
of the bar contained in cl.(b) of Art. 243-0 - Division Bench set 
aside the order of the Single Judge and remanded back the matter D 
for fresh disposal of the case - Appellant challenged the legality 
and correctness of the Division Bench s order - Held: Power of 
judicial review u/Art.2261227 is the part of the basic structure of 
_the Constitution, which can neither be tinkered with or eroded -
Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by -r-espon-
E 
dents u/Art. 226 is not maintainable - Jn instant cau, Respondents 
cannot challenge the election of the appellant to the office of 
Adhyaksha by filing an election petition as though they are voters, 
but not the members of the Zilla Panchayat in queslHm - However. 
a voter who is not a member cannot be denied opportunity to 
challenge the election to the office of Adhyaksha u!A.rt.2261227 of F 
the Constitution - Thus, writ petition filed by responde111ts before 
High Court is maintainable - Constitution of India - Arts.2261227, 
243-0. 
Judicial Review - Held: Power of judicial review. under 
Articles 2261227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the G 
Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded -
Constitution of India - Arts.2261227. 
. 
Remedy - Panchayat Elections - Held.' A voter in a 
-particular panchayat cannot be rendered remedi/ess if he is 
H 
859 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 8 S.C.R. 
A aggrieved by the election of the Adhayksha of the Panchayat -
Writ petition filed by voters u/Art.2261227 before High Court is 
maintainable - Constitution of India - Arts.2261227. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Whether the writ petition filed by the voters, who 
B are not the members of the Zilla Panchayat, challenging the 
election of the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat is maintainable. 
1. The appellant contended that inspite of Article 226 of 
the Constitution, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain 
the writ petition in view of the bar contained in clause (b) of Article 
C 243-0 of the Constitution. It was argued that the aggrieved 
person will have to avail himself the remedy provided in Rule 7 
of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha of 
Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat),Rules, 1994 and cannot approach 
the High Court in the first instance under Article 226 of the 
D Constitution of India. The contention is devoid of any merit. A 
voter in a particular panchayat cannot be rendered remediless if 
he is aggrieved by the election of the Adhayksha of the Panchayat. 
[Paras 11, 12) (864-C-DJ 
2. It is clear that power of judicial review under Articles 
E 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the 
Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even 
the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure 
of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ 
petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the 
Constitution is not maintainable. However, it is left to the 
F 
discretion of the court exercising the power under Articles 226/ 
227 to entertain the writ petition.[Para 131 [865-C-DI 
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. 
State of Kera/a and Anr. \1'.."73) 4 SCC 225 : [1973) 
Suppl. SCR 1 ; Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union 
G 
of India and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 625 : [19811 1 SCR 
206; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. 
(1997) 3 SCC 261 : [19971 2 SCR 1186 ; I.R. Coelho 
(dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1 : 
[20071 1 SCR 706 - relied on. 
H 
SMT. BHARAT! REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
861 
3. As noticed, though respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are the voters, A 
but they are not the members of the Zilla Panchayat. They are 
aggrieved by the election of the appellant to the office of the 
Adhyaksha. They cannot challenge the election of the appellant 
to the office of Adhyaksha by fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.