The Supreme Court has reiterated that the right to vote and contest elections are statutory rights, not fundamental rights. It held these rights depend on laws made by Parliament and can be regulated through eligibility conditions.
In an important clarification on electoral rights, the Supreme Court of India has once again made it clear that the right to vote is not a fundamental right but only a statutory right, meaning it exists only when a law specifically provides for it.
A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, in its order dated April 10, explained that both the right to vote and the right to contest elections are governed by laws made by the legislature and are not guaranteed under the Constitution as fundamental rights.
The Court clearly observed,
“It is well settled that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right… these rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to the extent conferred by statute,”
reinforcing the settled legal position on the nature of electoral rights in India.
The case arose from a dispute involving certain bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan. These bye-laws laid down specific eligibility conditions for candidates who wanted to contest elections to the management committees of these unions.
Earlier, the Rajasthan High Court had struck down these bye-laws, holding that they were inconsistent with the parent statute governing co-operative societies. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach.
The apex court held that the High Court should not have entertained the matter under its writ jurisdiction, especially when a proper statutory remedy was already available under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. According to the Court, when a law provides a specific mechanism to resolve disputes, parties should generally follow that route instead of directly approaching the High Court.
On examining the issue further, the Supreme Court also found fault with the High Court’s interpretation of the bye-laws. It noted that the High Court wrongly treated the eligibility conditions as disqualifications.
The Court clarified that the bye-laws only set eligibility criteria related to participation and performance of member societies. They did not take away or restrict anyone’s right to vote. Instead, they simply regulated who could contest elections, which is legally permissible.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are separate and distinct. While members may have a statutory right to vote, the right to contest can be subject to reasonable eligibility conditions laid down by law.
The Bench further stated that prescribing qualifications or eligibility criteria for contesting elections does not violate any constitutional principle, as long as such conditions are in line with the governing statute.
Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment and upheld the validity of the bye-laws framed by the co-operative unions.
During the proceedings, the petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal along with a team of advocates including Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Amit, Vani Vyas, and Prakhar Singh. On the other side, the State and other respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, along with advocates Arushi Rathore, Nidhi Jaswal, and Namit Saxena.
This ruling once again highlights that electoral rights in India are not absolute and are always subject to the framework of statutory laws, especially in specialised bodies like co-operative societies.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Right to Vote
