The Supreme Court has accepted a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2015 (Rajasthan impugned act), which fixes
The Supreme Court has accepted a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2015 (Rajasthan impugned act), which fixes several eligibility criteria for a person to contest local body elections.
A three judge bench of Justice Dave, Justice Lalit and Justice Nageswara Rao issued notices to central and state government while accepting the petition filed by two former sarpanches — Naurati and Kamla. The SLP was filed before the Supreme Court against the Rajasthan high court, which had dismissed the petition in January this year. The Rajasthan Impugned Act was challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds that it is arbitrary and not based on intelligible differentia and thus is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued that the Rajasthan impugned act pertains to opportunity and rights to participate in the democratic process and to contest the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Elections, which now stands curtailed by imposition of minimum educational qualifications, requirement of declaration as to no debts in relation to electricity and co-operative banks, and requirement of functional toilet at residence. The impugned act by imposing such qualifications in effect has not only curtailed the right to contest but has altogether excluded majority of scheduled caste women, scheduled caste men and women generally in Rajasthan, from contesting the Panchayati Raj elections, she said.
It was argued that there exists confusion and conflict of opinion on the status of right to vote and contest and the nature of restrictions that may be imposed on such rights. Benches of the Supreme Court of different strengths have given different opinions on the issue. In the light of such a confusion, it was argued that the matter required to be referred to a larger bench.
It was pointed out that the Constitution or any parliamentary law has not burdened the right to contest of MPs and MLAs with any education or toilet related disqualifications and there is no reason to treat sarpanchs and panchayat members differently. Post-election data as consolidate and prepared by Ms. Kavita Srivastava, PUCL National Secretary and Adv. Mr. Aditya Srivastava was brought to the Court’s notice showing the number of persons excluded and disenfranchised as an impact of upholding the validity of the Rajasthan impugned act.
