2013 (8) TMI 1144 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Whether Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition:
The Court examined the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against Annexure P-1. The respondent argued that the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order was issued by Rotary International, a private entity based in the USA, and not properly impleaded. The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish that Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution. Additionally, the petition was not filed by the persons directly affected by Annexure P-1, further questioning its maintainability.

2. Whether Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that Rotary International should be treated as a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 due to its public welfare activities. However, the Court held that the petitioners did not provide sufficient data or documents to demonstrate the nature, constitution, government control, source of finance, and activities of Rotary International. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish that a body falls within the ambit of Article 12. The Court referred to several judgments, including Binny Ltd. and Zee Telefilms, to conclude that Rotary International does not meet the criteria to be considered a "State" or "other authority."

3. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that their right to live with dignity under Article 21 was infringed by the impugned order, which affected their right to contest elections. The Court rejected this contention, stating that contesting and winning elections in a private club does not have any nexus with Article 21. The Court cited A.K. Gopalan and other judgments to assert that contesting elections is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. The impugned order was deemed an internal matter of a private club, unrelated to any public function or statutory obligation.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that it was not maintainable. The petitioners failed to establish that Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12, and the alleged violation of Article 21 was found to be meritless. The petition was also dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed by the persons directly affected by the impugned order.