The Supreme Court on Friday (10th April) reiterated that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are not fundamental rights, but only statutory rights which can be regulated by law. The decision was passed by a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, overturning a decision of the Rajasthan High Court.
While dealing with a dispute relating to certain bye-laws governing elections to District Milk Unions in Rajasthan, the Apex Court clarified that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are distinct rights, and the latter is subject to stricter regulations, such as qualifications, disqualifications and institutional requirements.
“Neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right… both are purely statutory rights and can be regulated by law…These rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to the extent conferred by statute,” the Supreme Court said, underscoring that eligibility conditions for contesting elections do not violate constitutional guarantees.
“While the right to vote enables a member to exercise franchise in accordance with the statutory scheme, the right to contest an election or to be elected is a distinct and additional right which may legitimately be made subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions, and disqualifications,’ the court added.
Upholding the bye-laws, the Supreme Court said the provisions laid down certain eligibility criteria for contesting elections and did not act as disqualifications. Further explaining, the court said that disqualifications impose a legal bar based on specified negative factors, while eligibility conditions are threshold requirements to make sure that only contributing members participate in the governance of cooperative bodies.
“The said bye-laws neither curtail any fundamental or statutory right nor do they introduce any disqualification dehors the statute. However, the High Court fell into manifest error in striking down the impugned bye-laws. The impugned judgment proceeds on a misapprehension of the statutory framework, an erroneous conflation of the right to vote with the distinct right to contest, and a failure to appreciate the settled distinction between eligibility conditions and disqualifications,” the top court said, allowing the SLP.
What was the dispute?
An appeal by way of Special Leave Petition (SLP) came up before the Supreme Court arising from a challenge to the validity of certain bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Cooperative Unions in Rajasthan. The bye-laws prescribed certain eligibility conditions, such as minimum milk supply and operational continuity, for candidates seeking to contest elections to their managing committees. Unhappy with the bye-laws, several primary co-operative societies challenged the validity of the bye-laws before the Rajasthan High Court.
In 2015, a Single-Judge Bench of the High Court struck down the bye-laws. The decision was later upheld by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in 2022. Following the Division Bench’s ruling, the Registrar initiated steps to amend the bye-laws, which prompted the chairpersons of various district milk unions, who were not parties before the High Court, to approach the Supreme Court.
