9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of nomination paper of a legal practitioner for election as a Councillor of a Municipality. 2. Interpretation of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 regarding the disqualifications of candidates for election. 3. Allegation of violation of fundamental rights under article 14 and article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a legal practitioner, filed a nomination paper for election as a Councillor of a Municipality which was rejected due to his employment as a legal practitioner against the Municipality. The rejection was challenged through a petition before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the petition but granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the Act had not come into operation in the Municipality when he filed his nomination paper, rendering the rejection illegal. However, the Court held that elections could be held under the Act before its full implementation, as authorized by section 1(5) of the Act. 2. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, particularly section 16(1)(ix) which prescribes disqualifications for candidates. The appellant contended that the disqualification violated his fundamental rights under article 14 and article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found the classification of legal practitioners employed on behalf of or against the Municipality reasonable to ensure the purity of public life. The disqualification aimed to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain integrity in governance. The Court dismissed the argument that other categories with potential conflicts were not covered, stating that legislation need not be all-encompassing. 3. Regarding the alleged violation of fundamental rights, the Court held that the disqualification did not impede the appellant's right to practice law but merely restricted his candidacy for election. It was deemed a reasonable restriction in the interest of public integrity. The Court concluded that the disqualification did not infringe upon the appellant's fundamental rights. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's contentions were rejected. The judgment upheld the legality of the rejection of the nomination paper and affirmed the validity of the disqualification under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.
|
