Right To Contest Election Not A Fundamental Right ; It Is Only A Right Conferred By Statute: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute.

An individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by Vishwanath Pratap Singh.

The Court also imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on Singh.

Singh had first approached the Delhi High Court challenging a notification issued by Election Commission of India for election to Rajya Sabha after he was not allowed to file his nomination without a proper proposer proposing his name. The High Court rejected his contention that his fundamental right of free speech and expression and right to personal liberty has been infringed.

The Apex Court, while dismissing his SLP, observed that the writ petition before the High Court was entirely misconceived. 

"The right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute.", the bench observed while referring to earlier judgments viz Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 and Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 2 SCC 445.

In Javed (supra), the Supreme Court had made the following observations: Right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute. At the most, in view of Part IX having been added in the Constitution, a right to contest election for an office in Panchayat may be said to be a constitutional right — a right originating in the Constitution and given shape by a statute. But even so, it cannot be equated with a fundamental right. There is nothing wrong in the same statute which confers the right to contest an election also to provide for the necessary qualifications without which a person cannot offer his candidature for an elective office and also to provide for disqualifications which would disable a person from contesting for, or holding, an elective statutory office.

In Rajbala (supra), it was held that the right to contest for a seat in either of the two bodies is subject to certain constitutional restrictions and could be restricted further only by a law made by the Parliament.

The court added that Singh did not have any right to contest election to the Rajya Sabha in terms of the law made by the Parliament.

"The Representation of People Act, 1950 read with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 has contemplated the name of a candidate to be proposed while filling the nomination form. Therefore, an individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act", the court said while dismissing the SLP.

Case details

Vishwanath Pratap Singh vs Election Commission of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 758 | SLP(C) 13013/2022 | 9 September 2022 | Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Headnotes

Representation of People Act, 1950 - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - The right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute - Te name of a candidate to be proposed while filling the nomination form. Therefore, an individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act-  Referred to Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 and Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 2 SCC 445.

Click here to Read/Download Order