Summary of this article
Supreme Court holds that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest is a fundamental right.
These rights are statutory and exist only to the extent provided by law.
Apex court says bye-laws setting eligibility criteria for cooperative elections are valid.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to vote and contest elections are not fundamental rights but statutory entitlements that exist only to the extent provided by law.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan observed that it is well settled that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right. The court added that while voting enables participation in the electoral process, the right to contest is a distinct and additional entitlement that can be subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions, and disqualifications.
According to Hindustan Times, the remarks came in a case concerning election rules for District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan. These unions function under a three-tier system established by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. Bye-laws were framed to set eligibility criteria for candidates, including minimum days and quantity of milk supply, the working status of societies, and audit standards.
Some primary cooperative societies had challenged these rules in the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that they were unfair and exceeded the provisions of the law. In 2015, a single judge struck down the bye-laws but allowed past elections to stand. This decision was upheld by a division bench in 2022.
Following this, the Registrar initiated the process to amend the bye-laws. This prompted chairpersons of several district milk unions—who were not parties to the High Court case but claimed to be affected—to approach the Supreme Court.
Hindustan Times reported that the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning. It held that the bye-laws merely laid down eligibility criteria and did not amount to disqualifications or violate constitutional principles. The apex court also questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions. Cooperative societies are generally not “State” under Article 12 and do not ordinarily perform public functions, the court said. As a result, disputes relating to their internal governance, particularly elections, do not typically warrant interference under Article 226.
The right to vote and to contest elections stems from statutes rather than the Constitution, as per the judgment. Laws such as the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951, determine who can vote, who can stand for elections, and who can be disqualified, for instance on grounds of age, citizenship, or criminal record.
Similar provisions apply to local bodies and cooperative societies under state laws and bye-laws. This allows the government to impose reasonable conditions on these rights, with courts intervening only if the rules are arbitrary or breach basic constitutional principles such as equality.
Reported HT, the bench emphasised that these rights exist only to the extent provided by law. The Supreme Court maintained that citing previous precedents, the right to contest remains subject to the qualifications and disqualifications laid down in the relevant statutes.
(With inputs from HT)
