Telangana HC Imposes 25K Cost On Man Who Filed PIL Against Panchayat Act For Prohibiting Candidates With Over 2 Children From Participating In Polls
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a public interest filed challenging Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. Section 21(3) restricts individuals who have more than 2 children from contesting in the Panchayat elections.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara dismissed the petition at SR stage, imposing a cost of 25 thousand, noting that...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a public interest filed challenging Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. Section 21(3) restricts individuals who have more than 2 children from contesting in the Panchayat elections.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara dismissed the petition at SR stage, imposing a cost of 25 thousand, noting that the Supreme Court had already adjudicated upon this matter, finally in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana.
“Since, it is not a PIL and the petition is unnecessarily filed in the capacity of PIL, we deem it proper to reject the PIL with costs of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the High Court Legal Services Committee within thirty days from today, failing which, the said Committee shall apprise the Court for taking appropriate action against the petitioner for non-compliance. “
Then Bench also noted that the petitioner was in no way an aggrieved party and had no bona fide to file the case.
“If certain persons were held to be ineligible to contest the election having more than two children, such persons may be 'persons aggrieved' and could have assailed that decision in independent capacity and not as a PIL. Even otherwise, curtains on this aspect were already drawn by the Supreme Court in the case of Javed (supra). On the basis of change of fertility rate, the aspect whether the law needs to be revisited is within the province of the law makers. In PIL, no such interference can be made. In nutshell, no case is made out for interference.”
The petitioner at the outset had conceded that the Supreme Court in 2003 had already deliberated on a similar matter and held against the petitioner, however, it was contended that since 2003, almost 25 years have passed, and thus, the issue needed re-evaluation.
“…we are in the year 2025, and in view of diminishing fertility rate, the provision imposing ban on contesting election for the persons having more than two children needs to be revisited," argued the petitioner.
The Bench also noted that the petitioner himself had more than two children and was an interested person, thus, the petition could not be treated as a PIL.
Thus, the PIL was dismissed with cost.
