Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
16IP63016
RAJIV GANDHI SCHOOL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Constitutional Law
Analysis of Rajbala Judgement
Under the guidance of
Dr. Uday Shankar
Blessan
16IP63016
11/18/2016
Blessan m
16IP63016
Table of Contents
LIST OF CASES REFERRED .................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 2
OBJECT NEXUS TEST- TEST OF EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14 ........................................ 2
VISION AND OBJECTIVE OF ELECTIONS .................................................................................. 8
THE LAW IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15 ................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 11
LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED ................................................................................................................. 12
2. Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State Of West Bengal AIR 1952 CAL 150
1
Blessan m
16IP63016
Introduction
More than any other provision in the Constitution. I should think the boldest step taken by
this Assembly is in the matter of universal adult suffrage with a belief in the common man
and in his power to shape the future of the country1 -Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar;
Unfortunately ,Six decades after independence the supreme court has given a decision that
has undermined this very boldness that the constituent assembly took while framing the
constitution .The top courts decision on Rajbala case, in which it declared the
seriously flawed, and has various constitutional infirmities. The apex courts decision goes
against the equality and various other principles embodied in the constitution.
The Haryana government amended Section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati raj act,
1994 in the year 2015 to include disqualifications for participation in panchayat elections on
the basis of educational status, defaulting on loans, and having functional toilet facilities at
home which goes against the equality principle of article 14. Article 14 of the Indian
constitution provides the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Similarly, Equality before law
implies the absence of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like, in favour of
individual and the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law,-Equal protection of
laws implies the right to equality of treatment in equal circumstances2.To test the validity of
article 14 the supreme court set out a test called as the object nexus test In Budhan
1
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOL. VIII, PG. 122-4
2
INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,DD BASU PAGES 87-88
2
Blessan m
16IP63016
Choudhry v. the State of Bihar3 by the following words: In order, to pass the test of
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group;
and
2. That differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
And then in Anwar Ali Sarkar vs The State of West Bengal4 the learned judge S.R.
Das, J. further elaborated that The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the
object of the Act are distinct and what is necessary is that there must be nexus between them.
The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 was formed by 73rd Amendment,
which states that one of the objects of constitutionalizing the Panchayati Raj institutions is to
remedy the insufficient representation of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and women. Furthermore, The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act has
following purposes
positions to institutions with statutory power for those hitherto deprived of it;
Education, including primary and secondary schools, Poverty alleviation programme, and
Imposing a restriction on (1) to serve the object of (2) ostensibly is dubious logic. A
statutory amendment, to survive the object-nexus test, ought to be consistent with the
3
[1955] 1 S.C.R. 1045
4
AIR 1952 CAL 150
3
Blessan m
16IP63016
corresponding object of the main Statute or the Constitutional Amendment authorizing the
statute. Thus, restricting participation in elections to promote literacy would fail the object-
The framers of the Constitution did not think it fit to include educational qualification
politics is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel or if basic education helps a human being
distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong, why does none of the pertaining articles
Rajya Sabha or Member of Legislative Assembly(Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191), not have
based, and the system of governments that is to function is to have the ultimate sanction of the
people as a whole, in a country where the large mass of the people are illiterate, and the
people owning property are so few, the introduction of any property or educational
qualifications for the exercise of the franchise would be a negation of the principles of
suffrage.6"
Similarly, Article 171 provides for the composition of Legislative Councils in a State.
Council, but it is immaterial if the person elected is a graduate; based on this article The
5
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOL. VIII, PG. 222-7
6
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOL. VIII, PG. 721-4
4
Blessan m
16IP63016
concept of such representation does not carry with it, as a necessary consequence, the further
notion that the representative must also possess the very qualifications of those he
represents it would be for the members of such a constituency themselves to decide whether
a person who stands for election from their constituency possesses the right type of
knowledge, experience, and wisdom which satisfy certain standards. It may well be that the
Constitution makers, acting upon such a presumption, had intentionally left the educational
Furthermore, Literacy is defined in Census operations, as the ability to read and write
with understanding in any language. A person who can merely read but cannot write is not
Also, The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 mandates that
matriculation is required for a general male candidate, middle pass for a general woman
candidate and Scheduled Caste (SC) male candidate and only Class 5 pass for an SC woman
candidate. Man or woman, SC or general, the functions of a panchayat member is the same.
higher qualification of the middle pass and matriculation is arbitrary and anomalous.
as public employment, the law will fail the test of Article 16 which provides equality of
7
AIR 1972 SC 2284
5
Blessan m
16IP63016
unreasonable classification and also violates the basic structure doctrine enshrined Article
such as family planning or increasing literacy to justify any legislation. This type of laws
would amount to what is called an unconstitutional condition i.e., subjecting the exercise of
Constitution.
Secondly, the State should be required to justify the relationship between the
restrictions that it has imposed, and the fundamental place of the electoral process in a
republican democracy. For instance, a law that prohibits persons with criminal convictions
from standing for elections has a demonstrable nexus with the role of elections in the
Moreover, under Article 21 Right to Education has been made a fundamental right
and it is the responsibility of the state to provide quality education to its subjects. By
delegating this towards individuals, the legislature has enacted an arbitrary act ultra vires to
the constitution.
Poverty and not lack of will the reason for ill iteracy
In the State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs K Shyam Sunder & Ors on 9 August 2011, the
Supreme Court observed that, the right of a child should not be restricted only to free and
compulsory education, but should be extended to have quality education without any
6
Blessan m
16IP63016
The wordings of the article 21A explicitly mention that "The State shall provide free
and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as
the State may, by law, determine." The word free clearly implies here that lack of
education is not because of the will of the individual but due to object poverty and other
of their male offspring, thus implanting gender inequality in the formative years of life)
3. traditional outlook of the lower class in using the services of young children
either for earning some additional money or looking after their younger siblings at home
Finally, in the People's Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India & Anr8, The court
observed that character, sense of devotion to duty and concern for the welfare of the people is
Taking all these in to account, it would be justified If the purpose of the election is to
select the most competent candidate, then conceivably, the legislature may impose a priori
competence, ensuring that people who fall below this threshold arent even eligible to
to give effect to the choice of the people, and hence there is no justification for limiting that
choice on the assumption that by allowing everyone to contest, there is a possibility of the
8
AIR 2005 SC 2419
7
Blessan m
16IP63016
on Franchise, which was set up to look into designing a system of representation for the
Indian dominion. According to him The right of representation and the right to hold office
under the State are the two most important rights that make up citizenship.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms9, the Supreme Court held
that no law could restrict a voters right to decide for himself whether educational
qualification or property of a person is relevant for the latter to be elected or re-elected as his
representative. Republican democracy is based on the core idea that every citizen has the
elected office. Every limitation upon this freedom is problematic. This is especially true when
In Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms, the Court held that the
right to vote, while not a fundamental right, was nonetheless a constitutional right, and
through PUCL vs the Union of India, 2003 10to PUCL vs the Union of India, 201411, where
the Court held that the act of voting is an exercise of Article 19(1)(a) freedoms. In
conclusion, a legislative enactment that goes beyond simply regulating the modalities of
voting (and therefore affects the statutory right to vote) and actually disenfranchises
sections of the population (thereby affecting the constitutional freedom of voting) must be
9
AIR 2002 SC 2112
10
AIR 2003 SC 2363
11
AIR 2014 Chh133
8
Blessan m
16IP63016
subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than a standard Article 14-rationality review. The logic of
The right / freedom to vote, and the right/freedom to stand for office are conceptually
Association and Ors vs. Union of India(NJAC case)12 (observes in paragraph 85 that,
Undoubtedly, the right created favour of citizens of India to participate in the election
process of the Lok Sabha, and the Legislative Assemblies is an integral part of the basic
The Haryana Panchayati Raj(Amendment) Act, 2015 is also violative of the Supreme
Courts own judgment by Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner that the little mans right to rise to Prime Ministership13 or President ship
The vision of democracy as envisaged by our founding fathers is one based not on
ensuring the most competent candidate wins (by whatever a priori definition of
competence), but on giving effect to the peoples choice. Apparently, prior screening out of
defeats the very purpose of the democratic form of the electoral process as envisaged by our
founding fathers and also goes against Equality Principles of Art 14.
12
2015(5) GLT (SC)12
13
(1977) ILR 2Delhi265
9
Blessan m
16IP63016
the total number of offices of Chairpersons in Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for
women. However, the actual number of offices reserved is determined by the provisions of
the Panchayati Raj Act of each State. As per 2011 census, The Haryana Panchayati
Raj(Amendment) Act, 2015 leaves 68 per cent of the Scheduled Caste women unable to
participate and thus creating a discrimination among the most weaker section of schedule
caste women.
When there are no educational qualifications at the Union and the State Government
level for Ministers of Legislative Assembly and Ministers of Parliament, such a rule for the
most vulnerable sections at the rural level who have the least educational qualifications is a
grave injustice meted to them. The introduction of such inequitable disqualification criteria
excludes the bulk of the non-literate women from the possibility of exercising their political
women ineligible thereby affecting the most oppressed section of society. Thus the legislation
completely violates the special rights provided to women under Article 15.
A functional toilet requires it is understood as, a simple flush system and lots of
water. There is no data produced by the State of Haryana that a pipeline is available to all the
Moreover imposing toilet requirement would amount to property restrictions and which is
against electoral process envisaged in the constitution on requirement that a person going to
10
Blessan m
16IP63016
A Person may not be able to pay his bill on time due to poverty, or for the mere
reason that the bill was not delivered by the electricity authorities on time; or the meter is
faulty, or the possibility of wrong calculation of arrears or the person is bonafide unaware of
his dues.
Article 243-F (1) (a) mandate that the disqualifications for an MLA and a panchayat
member should be the same under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act,
1951. The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 violates this principle by creating
In Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors14Chandrachud, CJ., writing the
judgment for the majority of the Judges of the Constitution Bench, has held that Articles 14,
19 and 21 of the Constitution constitute the golden triangle which affords to the people of this
country an assurance that the promise held forth by the Preamble will be performed by
ushering an egalitarian era through the discipline of fundamental rights, that is, without
emasculation of the rights to liberty and equality which alone can help preserve the dignity of
the individual.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the supreme needs to review its judgement in the Rajbala case as the
disqualifications based on education and other parameters does not confirm to the various
tests propounded by the court in establishing the validity of a legislation under article
14.Moreover the entire legislation also violates the rights of women under article 15 and
14
AIR 1986 SC 2030
11
Blessan m
16IP63016
freedoms provided under article 19.Thus in the best interest of the nations democracy the
supreme court need to constitute a larger bench to look to the issues raise and overrule its
12