BATOU Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondents.

(2.) By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of the two writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 14 (K) 05 and WP(C) No. 27 (K) 05, for, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together inasmuch as the same involve identical facts, raise common questions of law and the decision in any of the two writ petitions may have a bearing on the outcome of the other writ petition.

(3.) Though in a democracy, the right to cast vote is of great importance, it has never been recognized, in England, as a common law right or civil right. Since we, in India, have followed Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, the right to cast vote and elect has never been treated, in India, as a civil right or a fundamental right. A right to cast vote is, generally, governed by the statute or by way of agreed policy of a non-statutory body. At any rate, none can demand to cast vote in any election unless the right to cast vote is given under some statute, scheme or policy relevant thereto. In the case of local-self governments too, the right to elect and/or be elected is governed by statute enacted therefore. Observed the Supreme Court in Rama Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 438 thus: