Right to vote, contest elections not fundamental rights, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated that the right to vote or contest an election is not a fundamental right, but a statutory entitlement, Live Law reported.

This means that these rights exist only to the extent provided by law, the Hindustan Times quoted a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan as saying.

These rights are also distinct from each other, said a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, adding that the right to contest is subject to stricter regulations such as qualifications, disqualifications and institutional requirements.

The court was dealing with a case about election rules for the District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan.

A petition had challenged several bye-laws framed by the unions that prescribed qualifications for contesting the elections to the board of directors. The Rajasthan High Court had earlier held the provisions ultra vires, or beyond the powers.

The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court verdict.

The top court noted that “it is well settled that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right”, Live Law reported.

Citing previous verdicts, the bench noted that the Supreme Court had earlier held that such rights “are purely statutory in nature and exist only to the extent conferred by statute”.

The judges said: “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.”

Referring to judicial precedents, the bench also said that a clear doctrinal distinction emerges.

“…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, enabling a person to seek election to an office,” Live Law quoted the Supreme Court as saying. “The latter is inherently subject to stricter regulation…”