2015 (12) TMI 1685 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act 2015 - whether right to vote or the right to contest an election to any of the constitutional bodies is a constitutional or a statutory right since the extent to which curtailment or regulation of such right is permissible depends upon the nature of the right - Held that - A three Judge Bench in PUCL vs. Union of India 2003 (3) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA examined the question regarding nature of Right to Vote . The learned Judge P.V. Reddi in his separate opinion which was concurred by Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari examined this question in great detail and in express terms answered it holding that the Right to Vote is a constitutional right but not merely a statutory right. We are bound by this view taken by a three Judge Bench while deciding this question in this writ petition. Also in Javed vs. State of Haryana 2003 (7) TMI 714 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA examined the question regarding the nature of Right to Contest while examining the constitutional validity of certain provisions of The Act. The learned Judge R.C. Lahoti (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held that right to contest an election is neither a Fundamental Right nor a common right. It is a right conferred by statute. His Lordship went on to hold that at the most in view of Part IX having been added in the Constitution a right to contest the election for an office in Panchayat may be said to be a constitutional right. We are bound by this view taken by a three Judge Bench while deciding this question in this writ petition. In the light of aforementioned two authoritative pronouncements we are of the considered opinion that both the rights namely Right to Vote and Right to Contest are constitutional rights of the citizen. Keeping in view the powers authority and the responsibilities of Panchayats as specified in Article 243-G so also the powers given to Panchayats to impose taxes and utilization of funds of the Panchayats as specified in Article 243-H it is necessary that the elected representative must have some educational background to enable him/her to effectively carry out the functions assigned to Panchyats in Part IX. It is the legislative wisdom to decide as to what should be the minimum qualifications which should be provided in the Act. No one can dispute that education is must for both men and women as both together make a healthy and educated society. It is an essential tool for a bright future and plays an important role in the development and progress of the country. In view therefore Section 175 (v) of the Act is intra vires the Constitution and is thus constitutionally valid. Coming to the question regarding constitutionality of Section 175(w) which provides that if a person has no functional toilet at his place of residence he/she is disqualified to contest the election. In my view this provision too has reasonable nexus and does not offend any provision of the Constitution. No grounds much less sustainable grounds available to the petitioners to question the validity of this provision as this provision is enacted essentially in the larger public interest and is indeed the need of the hour to ensure its application all over the country and not confining it to a particular State. Moreover the State having provided adequate financial assistance to those who do not have toilet facility for construction of toilet there arise no ground to challenge this provision as being unreasonable in any manner. Section 175 (v) is intra vires the Constitution and is thus constitutionally valid.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015.
2. Whether the right to vote and the right to contest elections are constitutional or statutory rights.
3. Validity of the minimum educational qualification requirement for contesting Panchayat elections.
4. Validity of disqualifications based on arrears to cooperative bodies and electricity bills.
5. Validity of disqualification for not having a functional toilet at the place of residence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015:
The challenge was against the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015, which introduced new disqualifications for contesting Panchayat elections. The petitioners argued that these disqualifications were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Right to Vote and Right to Contest Elections:
The court examined whether the right to vote and the right to contest elections are constitutional or statutory rights. It referred to previous judgments, including the PUCL case, which concluded that the right to vote is a constitutional right, and the Javed case, which held that the right to contest elections is a constitutional right but not a fundamental right. The court affirmed that both rights are constitutional rights.

3. Minimum Educational Qualification Requirement:
The amendment introduced a minimum educational qualification of matriculation for general candidates, middle pass for women and Scheduled Castes, and 5th pass for Scheduled Caste women contesting for the post of Panch. The petitioners argued that this disqualification would exclude a significant portion of the population, especially women and Scheduled Castes, from contesting elections. The court, however, held that the prescription of educational qualifications is not arbitrary and has a reasonable nexus with the object of ensuring better administration of Panchayats. The court dismissed the challenge to this provision, stating that it is constitutionally valid.

4. Disqualifications Based on Arrears to Cooperative Bodies and Electricity Bills:
The amendment disqualified individuals who have arrears to cooperative bodies or electricity bills. The petitioners contended that this would unfairly disqualify many rural residents who are often indebted. The court noted that the Constitution already disqualifies undischarged insolvents from holding elected offices and found that the disqualifications based on arrears were not arbitrary. The court reasoned that individuals could clear their arrears to become eligible and upheld these provisions as constitutionally valid.

5. Disqualification for Not Having a Functional Toilet:
The amendment disqualified individuals who do not have a functional toilet at their residence. The petitioners argued that this would disqualify many poor individuals who cannot afford to build toilets. The court highlighted that financial assistance is available for constructing toilets and that the provision aims to promote hygiene and sanitation. The court found this classification neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and upheld the provision as constitutionally valid.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015. The provisions regarding educational qualifications, arrears to cooperative bodies and electricity bills, and the requirement of a functional toilet were all found to be constitutionally valid. The court emphasized that these provisions have a reasonable nexus with the objective of ensuring better administration and promoting hygiene and sanitation in Panchayats.