Citing previous rulings, the Court observed that while the act of voting enables participation in the electoral process, the right to contest an election is a distinct and additional right, which may be subject to conditions of qualification, eligibility, and disqualification.
Add informalnewz.com as a Preferred Source
The Supreme Court has held that the rights to vote and to contest elections are not fundamental rights, but rather legal rights. A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that these rights exist only to the extent that they are provided for by law. The Court stated that the right to contest elections is a distinct and additional right. According to ‘Live Law’, the Court remarked, “It is well-settled that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest elections is a fundamental right.”
Citing previous rulings, the Court observed that while the act of voting enables participation in the electoral process, the right to contest an election is a distinct and additional right, which may be subject to conditions regarding qualifications, eligibility, and disqualification. This case pertains to the election rules governing ‘District Milk Producers’ Cooperative Unions’ in Rajasthan. These unions operate under a three-tier system established pursuant to the ‘Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001’.
Bye-laws were framed to lay down eligibility criteria for candidates. These criteria included stipulations regarding the minimum number of days and quantity of milk supplied, the operational status of the societies, and audit standards. Certain primary cooperative societies challenged these rules in the Rajasthan High Court, contending that they were arbitrary and fell outside the scope of the law.
In 2015, a Single Judge set aside these bye-laws but allowed the elections held prior to that ruling to remain valid. In 2022, a Division Bench upheld this verdict. Subsequently, the Registrar initiated the process of amending the bye-laws. Consequently, the Chairpersons of several District Milk Unions approached the Supreme Court; although they were not parties to the proceedings in the High Court, they submitted that they were adversely affected by the said judgment.
