In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are not fundamental rights but statutory entitlements governed by law. A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan underscored that these rights exist only to the extent they are provided for under legislation.
“It is well settled that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right,” the court observed, reinforcing a long-standing legal position. The bench noted that while voting enables citizens to participate in the democratic process, the right to contest elections is a separate and additional entitlement, subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions, and disqualifications prescribed by law.
The case arose from a dispute over election rules governing District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan. These unions function under a three-tier cooperative framework established by the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.
Bye-laws framed under this system laid down eligibility criteria for candidates, including minimum requirements related to the number of days and quantity of milk supplied, the operational status of member societies, and compliance with audit standards.
Several primary cooperative societies challenged these provisions before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that the bye-laws were arbitrary and exceeded the scope of the parent legislation. In 2015, a Single Judge struck down the contested provisions while allowing past elections to remain valid. This decision was later upheld by a division bench in 2022.
Following the High Court’s ruling, the Registrar initiated steps to amend the bye-laws. This prompted chairpersons of multiple district milk unions—who were not original parties to the High Court proceedings but claimed to be adversely affected—to approach the apex court.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s reasoning, holding that the bye-laws merely prescribed eligibility criteria and did not amount to disqualifications or violate constitutional principles. The bench emphasized that setting eligibility standards for contesting elections falls within the permissible scope of statutory regulation.
The court also raised concerns about the maintainability of the writ petitions filed before the High Court. It pointed out that cooperative societies generally do not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and typically do not perform public functions.
As a result, disputes related to their internal governance—particularly electoral matters—do not ordinarily warrant judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court said.
The ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s consistent stance that electoral rights in India are statutory in nature and can be regulated by law. It also clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in matters involving cooperative societies, potentially impacting similar disputes across the country.
By drawing a clear distinction between fundamental rights and statutory entitlements, the judgment strengthens the legal framework governing elections in non-state bodies while preserving legislative authority to define eligibility norms.
Leave Your Comment