Right To Contest Elections Only A Statutory Right, Not A Fundamental Right: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The petitioner in this case submitted that he was an employee in the Revenue Department of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat and was working as a Section Officer. It was his case that he had submitted his nomination for the post of Secretary in the elections which were scheduled to be held for electing the office bearers of the Executive Committee of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Section Officers' Association. However, despite his name appearing on the voter list, his case was that the respondent Election Officer rejected his nomination on the ground that his name did not tally with the serial number in the voters list that was published.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Election Officer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of the writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Election Officer in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rule 22(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Conduct of Election Rules, 1964.

The respondents argued that since the respondent Association was registered under the Societies Registration Act, there already existed an efficacious remedy of raising the dispute before the civil court relating to the validity of the said election, and that a writ petition in that connection, was not maintainable. It was furthermore submitted that in case of any grievance in rejecting the nomination of the petitioner, he had to file an arbitration claim before the Registrar under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and that he could not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that even when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, one can invoke the writ jurisdiction when the principles of natural justice are violated in the process of conduct of the election. The petitioner also pleaded that the right to contest election was the fundamental right of the petitioner and since the fundamental right of the petitioner was being curtailed by improper rejection of his nomination, the present writ petition was maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC.

The Court first clarified that it was the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which was the governing Act in this case and not the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Registration Act, 1964.

In connection with the question as to whether the petitioner could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, reliance was placed on Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 to reach its finding that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by an order of the Election Officer, he could challenge the said decision or election only by way of making an application under Section 23, before the District Court concerned, which as per Section 2(d) of the Act, was the City Civil Court in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction elsewhere.

"Right to contest election is not a fundamental right. It is only a statutory right. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner is violated and seeking enforcement of the same that the present Writ Petition is maintainable," said the Court.

Case Title: C. Vasudeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No: Writ Petition No. 8696 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 133 

Coram: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Click Here To Read/Download Order