On December 10, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals who wished to run for office were ineligible due to five factors. It maintained the haryana panchayati raj amendment act 2015, which, based on five classifications, excluded the ordinary, poor, and disadvantaged residents of Haryana’s rural districts. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision that certain restrictions on the right to vote and select candidates are lawful, there are worries that these restrictions could further isolate a large number of impoverished communities.
rajbala vs state of Haryana Case Facts
The petitioners in rajbala vs state of Haryana filed a lawsuit to challenge the validity of the 2015 Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, which is also referred to as the “impugned act.” The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act of 1994’s section 175, which listed the requirements for being excluded from panchayat elections, was modified by this Act.
Two voter groups were established by the 2015 Act: those who, due to their educational background, were eligible to vote in panchayat elections and those who were not. Five requirements were added by the contested statute, and meeting them would prevent a person from running for office. These prerequisites are listed below:
- Criminal defendants are subject to a minimum ten-year prison sentence.
- Those who owe money to banks or agricultural cooperative associations.
- Those who owe money on their electricity bills.
- People who don’t meet the required educational requirements.
- Those who don’t have a working toilet at home.
Later, the petitioners filed a lawsuit, claiming that they were not eligible to run for panchayat elections because they did not meet the necessary educational requirements.
rajbala vs state of Haryana Issues
- Is it a statutory constitutional right to be able to vote and contest elections?
- Is it legal for the State Legislature to establish “qualifications” as opposed to “disqualifications”?
- Is it possible to deem an Act unlawful based only on its “arbitrary” nature?
- Does the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act 2015 lead to the unjust classification of individuals who belong to the same class but have no connection to the desired object?
- Can an Act that excludes a group of people from its protections become unconstitutional?
rajbala vs state of Haryana Judgment
- In rajbala vs state of Haryana, the court considered whether the right to vote and the right to run for office are statutory or constitutional rights. The court investigated this issue by consulting earlier rulings and constitutional clauses. The court determined that the right to vote and the right to run for office are, in fact, constitutional rights after closely examining these Articles. These Articles’ numerous sections create constitutional rights, and the fact that these rights are subject to constitutional limitations attests to their status as such. Consequently, it is clear that these rights are constitutional and not just statutory.
- The court came to the conclusion that neither the two sets of Articles nor any other indicator would make it possible to lawfully distinguish between the two claims. Consequently, the distinction between qualifications and disqualifications is semantic or theoretical only, and there is no relationship between them.
- In addition, the court held that the judiciary does not declare legislation to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it is “arbitrary,” as this would entail a value judgment, and courts do not consider the wisdom of legislative decisions unless they also violate a particular constitutional provision. Consequently, Indian courts are powerless to declare a statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it is “arbitrary” or breaches “due process of law.”
- The court found that the challenged statute did not create irrational categorizations or lack a relationship to the act’s intended purpose. In order to help candidates for panchayat posts carry out their responsibilities more successfully, the act’s classification system attempts to guarantee that they possess a basic education. This educational requirement was found as reasonable, legal, and pertinent to the objectives of the act as well as the requirements of Part IX of the Constitution.
- The court discussed whether a statute can be declared unconstitutional if it prevents a group of people from running for office. In the present instance, the contested act excluded people on the basis of particular reasons specified in Section 175 clauses (t), (u), (v), and (w) (1).
Finally, they endorsed the council’s position on behalf of the responder, which stated that no legislation prevents a contender from running for office, in order to maintain sanitation. The leader should set an example for others by building the restroom. However, they need to arrange for the cooperative bodies’ debts to be paid.
The amendment, in my opinion, was desperately needed because, if the impoverished population is well-managed and their development is appropriately facilitated, it will eventually result in the advancement of society as a whole.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
