2006 (8) TMI 583 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the amendments brought about in the Representation of People the Act, 1951 through the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No.40 of 2003) constitutionally valid?

Issues:
1. Deletion of 'domicile' requirement for candidates in the Council of States.
2. Introduction of the Open Ballot System in elections to the Council of States.

Issue No. I: Deletion of 'domicile'

Background and Legal Framework:
The petitioner challenged the amendments to the Representation of People Act, 1951, which removed the domicile requirement for candidates in the Council of States, arguing it violated the principle of federalism. The original Section 3 of the RP Act, 1951 required candidates to be electors in the state they wished to represent, but the amendment replaced this with a requirement to be an elector in any parliamentary constituency in India.

Submissions and Analysis:
- Petitioner's Argument: The amendment distorts the balance of power between the Union and the States, undermining the federal character of the Council of States, which is meant to represent state interests.
- Union of India's Argument: The amendment was necessary to address practical issues and ensure broader representation. The concept of residence is a matter of qualification under Article 84(c), which Parliament can prescribe.
- Legislative History: The historical legislative developments indicate that residence was never treated as a constitutional requirement. The Government of India Act, 1919, and subsequent laws did not uniformly require residence as a qualification for electors.
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles 80 and 84 of the Constitution, along with the RP Acts of 1950 and 1951, form an integrated scheme under which a person ordinarily resident in a constituency is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency. The deletion of the domicile requirement does not violate this scheme.

Conclusion:
The deletion of the domicile requirement does not violate the Constitution or the principle of federalism. The legislative history and the constitutional framework support the view that residence is not an essential ingredient of the structure of the Council of States. The amendment falls within the legislative competence of Parliament and does not infringe any constitutional provisions.

Issue No. II: Secrecy of Voting

Background and Legal Framework:
The amendments introduced the Open Ballot System for elections to the Council of States, replacing the secret ballot system. The petitioner argued that this violates the principle of free and fair elections and the voter's freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Submissions and Analysis:
- Petitioner's Argument: The right of secrecy in voting is essential for free and fair elections. The open ballot system compromises this secrecy, leading to potential coercion and undermining the democratic process.
- Union of India's Argument: The open ballot system was introduced to address the issue of cross-voting and corruption in Rajya Sabha elections. The Ethics Committee of Parliament recommended this change to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Judicial Precedents: The Supreme Court has consistently held that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution, and free and fair elections are essential to this principle. However, the right to vote is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.
- International Conventions: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights emphasize secret ballots for free and fair elections. However, these international norms do not override domestic law, which can prescribe different voting methods for different types of elections.

Conclusion:
The introduction of the open ballot system for elections to the Council of States does not violate the Constitution. The legislative amendment aims to ensure the integrity of elections and address issues of corruption and cross-voting. The right to vote, while essential, is subject to statutory regulation, and the open ballot system is a reasonable restriction to ensure free and fair elections in the context of indirect elections to the Council of States.

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Representation of People Act, 1951. The amendments deleting the domicile requirement and introducing the open ballot system were upheld as constitutional and within the legislative competence of Parliament. The interim orders were vacated, and all parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →