NARAYAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Special Appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21. 08. 2001, a short but interesting question of law of public importance which arises for consideration is- " Whether a Sarpanch elected by a valid democratic process can be ousted from the office on the ground that he was disqualified to contest the election as on the date of nomination, viz; he was undergoing a trial before the competent court which had taken cognizance of the offence and framed a charge against him of the offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more inviting applicability of Clause (gg) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 inspite of the fact that on the date of Tribunal upset the election, he stood acquitted of the charges levelled against him?"

(2.) THE question arises in the backdrop of the facts that the appellant - writ petitioner, hereinafter referred-to as `the petitioner' filed nomination paper to contest the election of Sarpanch, village Denda on 3. 2. 2002. THE nomination was scrutinized and accepted on the same day. THEre were five candidates in the fray. THE appellant secured the highest votes i. e. 525, whereas the nearest rival viz; Shri Beenja secured 283 votes. Thus, he was declared elected. THE said election was challenged by way of an Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 5 viz; Pukhraj under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994' read with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1996' on the ground that the petitioner's nomination was wrongly accepted, inasmuch as he was disqualified in terms of Section 19 (gg) of the act of 1994 as he was facing a criminal trial in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali.

(3.) THE constitutional validity of the said provision has been upheld by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Ram vs. State of Rajasthan While considering the validity of the provision, this Court has taken into consideration the political scenario in the Country i. e. criminalisation in politics. This Court while rejecting the contention that there is a violation of the fundamental rights of a person in not permitting him to contest the election, held that to contest the election is not a fundamental right. It was also observed that as far as the violation of statutory right is concerned, a reasonable restriction can be imposed in the public interest. It appears that the Court was also conscious of the fact that while there is an increase in the criminalisation in the country, there is also growing tendency of false implication to achieve political, business or private motives. THE Division Bench also held that the object of the amendment was to keep the persons under cloud, away from the election fray in the larger public interest. THE Division Bench in detail examined the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to framing of charge, discharge of the accused person at the stage of charge and quashing of the proceedings. Thus, it appears that the object of the amended provisions of clause (gg) in Section 19 is to keep away persons against whom on a judicial scrutiny, a prima facie substance is found in the allegations constituting any criminal offence levelled against them, to appear that purity is maintained in election. To say that the intention of the legislature was to completely delink the qualification of the candidate with the result of the trial, is going too far destroying the basics of criminal jurisprudence, so much so even if a person is declared innocent by a competent court, he will carry the stigma once levied by a jealous political opponent, forming a category of "deemed convict" without trial.