NewKerala.com

SC: Voting, Contesting Elections Are Statutory Rights, Not Fundamental

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to vote and the right to contest an election are statutory rights, not fundamental rights. The ruling came while upholding eligibility conditions for candidates in Rajasthan's cooperative dairy body elections. The court clarified these distinct statutory rights can be regulated, restricted, or subjected to qualifications by law. It held the Rajasthan High Court erred by conflating restrictions on candidature with restrictions on voting rights.

Key Points: SC Says Voting, Contesting Are Statutory, Not Fundamental Rights

  • SC distinguishes voting from contesting rights
  • Rights are statutory, created by law
  • Rights can be regulated by legislation
  • Upholds Rajasthan dairy body candidate rules
2 min read

Voting and contesting elections are statutory rights, not fundamental: SC

Supreme Court clarifies voting & contesting are statutory rights, not fundamental, upholding eligibility rules for Rajasthan dairy body elections.

"neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, April 11

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to vote and the right to contest an election are not fundamental rights but statutory rights created by law, and can therefore be regulated or restricted through legal provisions.

While upholding eligibility conditions prescribed for candidates contesting elections to cooperative dairy bodies in Rajasthan, a Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Sanjay Karol observed that "neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right," clarifying that both rights exist only to the extent conferred by statute.

Drawing a clear distinction between the two, the apex court said the right to vote and the right to contest elections "operate in distinct fields" and cannot be treated as interchangeable.

"The right to vote is the right to participate in the electoral process by exercising franchise; and the right to contest is a distinct and additional right," the Justice Mahadevan-led Bench said, adding that the latter can validly be subjected to "qualifications, eligibility conditions, and disqualifications."

The ruling came in the context of a dispute over bye-laws framed by Rajasthan's District Milk Producers' Cooperative Unions, which imposed conditions such as minimum milk supply requirements and operational performance standards for candidates seeking election to the Board of Directors.

Setting aside the impugned decision striking down the bye-laws, the Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan High Court had erred in equating restrictions on candidature with restrictions on voting rights.

"The High Court, by equating regulation of eligibility to contest elections with a restriction on the right to vote, conflated two distinct statutory rights," the Justice Mahadevan-led Bench said.

It further held that the impugned bye-laws only regulated eligibility to contest or continue in office and did not curtail members' voting rights. "The impugned bye-laws operate solely in the domain of candidature and holding of office, without impinging upon the right to exercise franchise," the apex court said.

It clarified that statutory rights, unlike fundamental rights, can be shaped, limited, or regulated by legislation to ensure effective governance and institutional integrity.

"The right to contest an election and to vote can always be restricted or abridged, if statute/rules or regulations prescribe so," the apex court held.

Holding that the eligibility conditions were valid and consistent with the statutory framework governing cooperative societies, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the impugned bye-laws.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While I understand the need for qualifications in specialized cooperatives, the principle is worrying if applied broadly. If contesting elections is not a fundamental right, what stops future governments from adding arbitrary restrictions for political gain? The line between regulation and suppression is thin.
R
Rohit P
Makes perfect sense. You can't have someone with no connection to milk production running a dairy cooperative board. This is about functional efficiency, not denying democracy. The High Court got it wrong by mixing up voting and contesting.
S
Sarah B
Interesting read. In many countries, even for local bodies, there are residency or property ownership requirements. The court is simply saying these are statutory privileges created by law, not inherent constitutional rights. The distinction is legally sound.
K
Karthik V
The core issue is ensuring qualified people run institutions. Look at the mess in some urban cooperative banks because of unqualified directors. This judgment reinforces that. For the common member, their right to vote for the right candidate remains untouched. Bhagwan kare sab cooperative societies aise hi transparent chalein.
M
Meera T
I respectfully disagree with the court's broad statement. In spirit, the right to contest should be as sacred as the right to vote in a democracy. Calling it a mere statutory right diminishes its value. Today it's milk supply, tomorrow it could be something used to exclude legitimate voices. We must be cautious.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50