RAMA KANT JINDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed in public interest finds fault with the condition laid down under Section 34 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, of deposit of Rs.25,000/ - for contesting an election from a parliamentary constituency (Rs.12,500/ - for a candidate who is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe), as well as to the limit imposed under Section 77 of the said Act, of Rs.70,00,000/ - to be spent on the election, on the ground that the same vests an economically stronger candidate with an advantage over an economically weak candidate.

(2.) THE aforesaid provisions, of Security Deposit and Ceiling on the expenditure to be incurred on the election have been in force nearly since the inception of the elections in this country and have served the purpose well. For that reason alone the same are not to be tinkered with. Even the petitioner does not claim that there should be no requirement of any deposit or that there should be no ceiling on the expenditure. His objection is that the amount of the deposit and the amount of the maximum expenditure should be less than as has been prescribed.

(3.) RATHER , the petition has been filed on the premise that there is a right to contest election. The position however is otherwise. The Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency AIR 1952 SC 64 held that the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute or special law i.e. the Representation of People Act, 1951 (which was held to be a self contained enactment) and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it. This position was reiterated in Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya Vs. Lachhi Ram AIR 1954 SC 686 in the context of challenge to Section 123(5) and 124(5) of the Act (the incurring or authorising incurring of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 is provided for in Section 123(6) ) and it was held, that the said provisions merely prescribe conditions which must be observed by a person if he wants to enter Parliament; that the right to stand as a candidate and contest an election is not a common law right; it is a special right created by statute and can only be exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute. It was further held that the Fundamental Rights Chapter has no bearing on a right like this created by statute and no person has a fundamental right to be elected member of Parliament; if he wants that, he must observe the Rules. Accordingly, the challenge to the vires of Section 123(5) and 124(5) was dismissed. The Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774 reiterated that right to vote or to contest election is neither a Fundamental Right nor a common law right, but it is purely a statutory right governed by statute/ Rules/Regulations and the right to contest an election and to vote can always be restricted or abridged, if statute/ Rules or Regulations prescribe so.