Nominated Town Panchayat Members Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Polls : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that nominated members of Town Panchayats are not entitled to vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Local Authorities' Constituencies, ruling that their inclusion in the electoral roll is contrary to the constitutional scheme.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed a batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court's orders, which had held that nominated members could not participate in the electoral process and had directed exclusion of their votes from the recount. The dispute arose from the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities' Constituency. The returned candidate had won by a margin of six votes. However, 12 nominated members of four Town Panchayats had been included in the electoral roll and had cast their votes, leading to a challenge by the defeated candidate. The High Court had subsequently held that nominated members were ineligible to vote, directed segregation of their ballots and ordered a recount. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution and Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 use the expression “members” of local authorities and do not distinguish between elected and nominated members. They also contended that once the electoral roll had attained finality, votes cast by persons included in it could not subsequently be invalidated. Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that the constitutional framework introduced by the 74th Constitutional Amendment requires a harmonious interpretation of Article 171 with Article 243-R, which expressly distinguishes between elected and nominated members of municipalities.“The constitutional distinction between elected and nominated members is clear and intentional,” the Court observed, noting that elected representatives derive authority from a democratic mandate, whereas nominated members are inducted because of their expertise and perform an advisory rather than representative role. The bench said permitting nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections despite being barred from voting in municipal meetings would create a constitutional anomaly.“If Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution was to be interpreted literally so as to include nominated members, an unreasonable consequence would follow… a nominated member who is not allowed by the Constitution to vote in the municipality's own decision-making process would still be allowed to vote in the election of a member of the Legislative Council,” the judgment stated. Accordingly, the Court held that the expressions “members of municipalities” in Article 171(3)(a) and “every member” in Section 27(2)(b) of the 1950 Act must be understood to refer only to elected representatives who possess voting rights within the concerned local authority. The Court also rejected the contention that the finality of electoral rolls protected the votes already cast by nominated members. It distinguished earlier decisions on the ground that they dealt with ordinary irregularities in electoral rolls, whereas the present case involved persons whose inclusion in the electoral college was found to be unconstitutional. “The principle of finality… cannot override the Constitution,” the bench held. On the issue of recount, the Court held that the requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that the election result must be materially affected was satisfied because the returned candidate's victory margin was six votes while 12 invalid votes had been cast by nominated members. The bench further rejected the argument that identifying and segregating the ballots of nominated members would violate the secrecy of the ballot, observing that secrecy cannot be invoked to sustain a constitutional illegality. It accepted the Returning Officer's evidence that the votes of nominated members could be identified through ballot papers, counterfoils and marked electoral rolls. Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's judgments, directed the Registry to transmit the sealed recount report to the High Court, and ordered the respondent authorities to implement the High Court's directions within 30 days. AppearancesFor the petitioners/appellants: Senior Advocates Shekhar Naphade, S. Niranjan Reddy and Anand Sanjay M. Nuli appeared, instructed by AORs Randhir Kumar Ojha and M/s Nuli & Nuli. For the respondents: Senior Advocates A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and V. Giri. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj. HeadnoteConstitution of India, 1950 — Article 171(3)(a) vs. Article 243-R — Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Section 27(2)(b) — Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 — Section 352(1)(b) — Electoral Rights of Nominated Members in...

Nominated Town Panchayat Members Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Polls : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Nominated Town Panchayat Members Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Polls : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers