9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of fundamental rights under Article 15(1) by conducting elections on communal lines, illegal exercise of powers in nomination, relief sought under Article 32, scope of remedy under Article 32, discrimination in election process, denial of equality in political rights, relief sought against elected and nominated members. Analysis: The judgment involves an application under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking protection of fundamental rights under Article 15(1) against alleged violations by the respondents. The petitioners, residents of Etah, complained about by-elections held on communal lines, depriving them of voting rights and candidacy opportunities. They sought writs of quo warranto, mandamus, and other directions against respondents 3, 4, 11, and 12, challenging the legality of their actions as members of the Municipal Board. The petition also requested writs against the District Magistrate and Civil Judge of Etah to prevent the holding of any illegal board meetings. The court acknowledged that laws providing for elections on separate electorates for different religious communities violate Article 15(1) of the Constitution, prohibiting discrimination based on religion, among other grounds. The judgment delves into the scope of the remedy under Article 32, emphasizing its limitation to enforcing fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The court highlighted that the petitioners' rights as rate-payers in the Municipality, ensuring the Board's legal constitution and the validity of members, fall outside Article 32's purview as they are not fundamental rights under Part III. The petitioners contended that the elections discriminated against them based on religion and delimitation on communal lines denied equality in political rights, violating Articles 15(1) and 14. However, the court found no ongoing discrimination against the petitioners and noted their failure to challenge the election process earlier when the opportunity existed. The judgment concluded that the petitioners' failure to assert their rights during the elections under the old system of separate electorates, coupled with their delayed complaint after recent developments, weakened their claim of fundamental rights infringement. The court rejected the argument that the elected members were void and upheld that relief sought against them did not align with enforcing fundamental rights under Articles 15(1) and 14. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioners' application under Article 32, stating that they misconceived their remedy. The petition was dismissed with costs, emphasizing the need for appropriate legal proceedings to address the alleged grievances effectively.
|
