You are on page 1of 100

1

IN

THE

HIGH COURT
AT

OF

PUNJAB

AND

HARYANA

CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015
Public Interest Litigation

IN THE MATTER OF:


PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
STATE

OF

HARYANA & ORS


INDEX

SR. NO.

DESCRIPTION

DATED

PAGE

COURT

NO.
1.

LIST OF DATES AND

25/08/2015

FEE
-

2.

EVENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES

25/08/2015

50.00

3.

CIVIL WRIT PETITION

25/08/2015

4.

AFFIDAVIT

25/08/2015

5.

ANNEXURES
23/08/2015

P-1: Resolution

13/08/2015

P-2: Ordinance

13/08/2015

P-3: Notification
P-4:

Order

in

CWP

21/08/2015

17452 of 2015
6.

P-5: SECC Report


POWER OF ATTORNEY

TOTAL

COURT

FEE

25/08/2015

NOTE:-

1. The main law points involved in this writ petition are at page
no.
Para no. 17 of the paper book.
2. Relevant Statutes/Rules:
a. Constitution of India;
b. Haryana Panchayti Raj Act, 1994
c. Haryana Panchayti Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
3. Any caveat received: No
4. Nature of Civil Writ Petition: Public Interest Litigation
Chandigarh
Dated: 25/08/2015

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)


P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
M:9592771330/9855686442
mail@arjunsheoran.com

IN

THE

HIGH COURT

OF

PUNJAB

AND

HARYANA

AT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015


Public Interest Litigation
IN THE MATTER OF:
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
STATE

OF

HARYANA & ORS

FEE MEMO
TOTAL COURT FEE

Chandigarh
Dated: 25/08/2015

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)


P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
M:9592771330/9855686442
mail@arjunsheoran.com

LIST
14.08.2015

OF

DATES

AND

EVENTS:

Ordinance no. 5 of 2015 titled Haryana


Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
promulgated

25.08.2015

by

the

Honble

Governor

of

Haryana dated 14.08.2015


Hence this writ petition

Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)


P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
M:9592771330/9855686442
mail@arjunsheoran.com

IN

THE

HIGH COURT

OF

PUNJAB

AND

HARYANA

AT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2014


Public Interest Litigation
MEMO

OF

PARTIES

PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, Punjab and Chandigarh


Chapter, through its General Secretary Sh. Rajender Mohan
Kashyap s/o Late Shiv Dutt, residing at H.No. 133, Sector 22A,
Chandigarh
Petitioner
Versus
1. STATE

OF

HARYANA, Civil Secretariat Haryana, Sector 1,

Chandigarh, Law and Legislative Department, Government of


Haryana, Secretariat, Government of Haryana through its
Principal Secretary
2. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATS, Government of
Haryana Through the Principal Secretary, New Haryana Civil
Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandigarh
3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Through the Commissioner
and Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Plot No. 2, Sector 17,
Panchkula, Haryana

Respondents
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)

P/867/2011

MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
M:9592771330/9855686442
mail@arjunsheoran.com

CIVIL WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER


ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SEEKING ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS, DIRECTIONS
ORDINANCE
PANCHAYATI

NO.

TO HOLD

OF

2015

AND

DECLARE

TITLED

HARYANA

RAJ (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2015

PROMULGATED BY THE HONBLE GOVERNOR OF


HARYANA DATED

14.08.2015 AS VIOLATIVE AND

ULTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO HOLD AND


DECLARE THAT SUB-SECTIONS (AA), (T), (U), (V) AND
(W) TO SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA PANCHAYATI
ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED VIDE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI RAJ (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2015,
AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21, 40
AND DEHORS PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA; AND TO DECLARE THE STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION'S NOTIFICATION FOR THE ELECTIONS
DATED 14-08-2015 AS VOID.
AND
ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE ORDINANCE


NO.

OF 2015 PROMULGATED BY THE HONBLE

GOVERNOR,

HARYANA

VIOLATIVE

AND

DATED

ULTRA

14.08.2015

VIRES

OF

AS
THE

CONSTITUTION;
AND
ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUB-

SECTIONS (AA) AND/OR (T) AND/OR (U) AND/OR (V)


AND/OR (W)

OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA

PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED


VIDE

ORDINANCE

NO.

OF

2015,

AS

BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS


PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND

ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTION (AA) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED
VIDE

ORDINANCE

NO.

OF

2015,

AS

BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS


PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (T) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED
VIDE

ORDINANCE

NO.

OF

2015,

AS

BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS


PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (U) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA

PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED


VIDE

ORDINANCE

NO.

OF

2015,

AS

BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS


PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (V) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED
VIDE

ORDINANCE

NO.

OF

2015,

AS

BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS


PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
ISSUE

APPROPRIATE

WRIT/WRITS,

ORDERS,

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (W) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED
VIDE

ORDINANCE

NO.

OF

2015,

AS

BEING

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS


PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;

AND
STAY

THE

OPERATION

OF

THE

IMPUGNED

ORDINANCE (ANNEXURES P-2) AND NOTIFICATION


(ANNEXURE P-3) IN THE INTERIM PERIOD, DURING
THE PERIOD OF ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
AND

ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION


WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE;

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.

That the petitioner is an organization agitating and fighting


for human rights and civil liberties in India. The petitioner
has taken up cudgels on behalf of the oppressed and weaker
sections in defence of their rights in the Honble Supreme
Court of India as well as various Honble High Courts across
the country. Therefore, the petitioner has locus standi to file
the present writ petition and is thus competent to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Honble Court.

2.

That the present petitioner is a unit of Indias largest


voluntary human rights organization and has been working
on the issues of civil liberties, human rights and other issues
relating to people friendly governance and administration
inter alia since several decades. It does not take any funds
from

governmental

agencies,

funding

agencies,

foreign

governments, corporations and is completely run on small


donations/membership fee collected from its individual
members.
3.

The PUCL was formed in 1976 by Sh. Jayaprakash Narayan.


Some of the countrys well known freedom fighters like
Acharya Kripalani, Krishan Kant were amongst the founding
members of the PUCL. Amongst the eminent persons who
have led the PUCL are Justice Tarkunde, Justice Rajinder

Sachar,

Prof.

Rajni

Kothari,

well

known

jurist

KG

Kannabiran, Arun Shourie and numerous others. The


present National President is Prof. Prabhakar Sinha and
State President is Sh. RL Batta, Senior Advocate.
4.

That PUCL India has initiated several legal interventions in


human rights and civil liberties issues, and filed several
Public Interest Litigation Petitions in the Honble Supreme
Court of India and Honble High Courts across India for the
enforcement of citizen rights and civil liberties. This has led
to several notable and path breaking decisions of the Honble
Courts, which include the famous NOTA (None of the Above)
button case [2013(10) SCC 1] and the Right to Food case
[W.P. No. 196 of 2001, 2013(2) SCC 663] currently under
adjudication before the Honble Supreme Court. Instances of
reported judgments of the same would include the matter
reported as AIR 1997 SC 568, (PUCL v. Union of India)
wherein the PUCL had challenged the telephone tapping by
the police in the Honble Supreme Court on the ground that
the citizen had a right to privacy which was a part of Right to
life as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In another
matter, reported as AIR 1997 SC 1203, the PUCL filed a
matter for compensation in a case of a fake encounter.
Thereafter,

vide

CWP

No.

1827

of

2004,

the

PUCL

approached the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana


for the constitution of a State Human Rights Commission for

the State of Haryana under the Protection of Human Rights


Act, 1993. The present petitioner had challenged the
constitutionality of the amendments made to the Haryana
Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, in
CWP No. 15333 of 2013 titled Peoples Union of Civil
Liberties versus State of Haryana, after which the State
Of Haryana had amended the relevant provisions of Haryana
Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
5.

That the petitioner is acting in a bona fide manner, entirely


for public interest of the people of Punjab and Haryana. The
petitioner

has

authorized

its

General

Secretary,

Shri

Rajender Mohan Kashyap through a resolution passed by


the Executive Committee dated 23/08/2015. A copy of the
said resolution is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P 1.
6.

It is during its work as a human rights and civil liberties


organization in Punjab and Haryana that it was realised that
respondent No. 1 has made certain amendments to the
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act through the

in a wrongful,

illegal and arbitrary fashion affecting the rights of the


citizens of Haryana.
7.

That the Present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the


Constitution of India is being filed by the Petitioners above
named, seeking issuance of appropriate writ/writs, orders,
directions to hold and declare Ordinance No. 5 of 2015 titled

10

Haryana

Panchayati

Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015

promulgated by the Honble Governor of Haryana dated


14.08.2015 as violative and ultra vires of the Constitution, to
hold and declare that sub-sections (v) to section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted vide
Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, as
being violative of articles 14, 19, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of
the Constitution of India; and to declare the State Election
Commission's Notification for the elections dated 14-08-2015
as void.
8.

The

present

Writ

Petition

under

Article

226

of

the

constitution of India is being filed by the Petitioner


Organisation on behalf of countless residents of the State of
Haryana, who are poor, underprivileged and belong to
weaker sections of the

society,

i.e.

Scheduled Caste,

Scheduled Tribe, Minorities and OBC, and are permanent


residents

of

State

of

Haryana.

That

the

Petitioner

Organisation represents countless citizens of India and


residents of Haryana who symbolize a large section of people
who are competent to handle panchayat work and are
committed to the cause of upliftment and development of the
people. The petitioner organisation have approached this
Honble Court to protect the interests of public at large, who
would be denied of their right and opportunity to contest

11

elections and participate in the democratic process of local


self-governance.
9.

That section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994


reads as follows:
175. Disqualifications. - (1) No person shall be a Sarpanch, [-] or
a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti
or Zila Parishad or continue as such who (a) has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act,
been convicted(i) of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Act
22 of 1955), unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as
the Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed
since his conviction; or
(ii) of any other offence and been sentenced to imprisonment for
not less than six months, unless a period of five years, or such
lesser period as the Government may allow in any particular case,
has elapsed since his release; or
(b) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound
mind; or
(c) has been adjudicated an insolvent and has not obtained his
discharge; or
(d) has been removed from any office held by him in a Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad under any provision
of this Act or in a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad before the commencement of this Act under the Punjab
Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and Punjab Panchayat Samiti Act,
1961, and a period of five years has not elapsed from the date of
such removal, unless he has, by an order of the Government
notified

in

the

Official

Gazette

been

relieved

from

the

disqualifications arising on account of such removal from office; or


(e) has been disqualified from holding office under any provision
of this Act and the period for which he was so disqualified has not
elapsed; or
(f) holds any salaried office or office of profit in any Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad;
(g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner any share or
interest in any work done by order of the Gram Panchayat,
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad;

12

(h) has directly or indirectly, by himself or, his partner share or


interest in any transaction of money advanced or borrowed from
any officer or servant of any Gram Panchayat; or
(i) fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him to the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or any Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad subordinate thereto
or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with the Chapters
and Provisions of this Act, within three months after a special
notice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf has been
served upon him;
(j) is servant of Government or a servant of any Local Authority; or
(k) has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a Foreign State or is
under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a
Foreign State ; or
(l) is disqualified under any other provision of this Act and the
period for which he was so disqualified has not elapsed ; or
(m) is a tenant or lessee holding a lease under the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or is in arrears of
rent of any lease or tenancy held under the Gram Panchayat,
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad ; or
(n) is or has been during the period of one year preceding the
date of election, in unauthorised possession of land or other
immovable property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat
Samiti or Zila Parishad ; or
[(o) being a Sarpanch, or Panch or a member of Panchayat Samiti
or a Zila Parishad has cash in hand in excess of that permitted
under the rules and does not deposit the same along with interest
at the rate of twenty-one per centum in pursuance of a general or
special order of the prescribed authority within the time specified
by it ; or]
(p) being a Sarpanch, [-] or Panch or a Chairman, Vice- Chairman
or Member, President or Vice-President or Member of Panchayat
Samiti or Zila Parishad has in his custody prescribed records and
registers and other property belonging to, or vested in, Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad and does not hand
over the same in pursuance of general or special order of the
prescribed authority within the time specified in the order.
(q) has more than two living children ;
Provided that a person having more than two children on or upto
the expiry of one year of the commencement of this Act, shall not
be deemed to be disqualified.

13

[(r) admits the claim against Gram Panchayat without proper


authorisation in this regar :
Provided that such disqualification shall be for a period of six
years; and
Explanation 1 - A person shall not be disqualified under clause (g)
for membership of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad by reason only of such person, (a) having share in any joint stock company or a share or interest
in any society registered under any law for the time being in force
which shall contract with or be employed by or on behalf of Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad ; or
(b) having a share or interest in any newspaper in which any
advertisement relating to the affairs of a Gram Panchayat,
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad may be inserted ; or
(c) holding a debenture or being otherwise concerned in any loan
raised by or on behalf of any Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti
or Zila Parishad; or
(d) being professionally engaged on behalf of any Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad as a Legal
Practitioner ; or
(e) having any share or interest in any lease of immovable
property in which the amount of rent has been approved by the
Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad in its own
case or in any sale or purchase of immovable property or in any
agreement for such lease, sale or purchase ; or
(f) having a share or interest in the occasional sale to the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad of any article in
which he regularly trades or in the purchase from the Gram
Panchayat of any article, to a value in either case not exceeding in
any year one thousand rupees.
Explanation 2. - For the purpose of clause (1) (i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid
the arrears or the sum referred to in clause (i) of this sub-section,
prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates ;

10.

That the Respondent No. 1 vide Ordinance No.

5 of 2015

promulgated

prescribed

on

14.08.2015

has

interalia

mandatory educational qualification for eligibility to hold

14

elected posts of PRIs established under the Haryana Act. The


Impugned

Ordinance

lays

educational

and

other

qualifications for being elected as members of PRIs. The


impugned provision reads as follows:
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(1) of article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Haryana hereby promulgates the following Ordinance :-

This Ordinance may be called the Haryana Panchayati Raj


(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
In section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994:I.

After clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted,


namely:(aa) has not been convicted, but charges have been framed in a
criminal case for an offence, punishable with imprisonment for
not less than ten years, or;

II.

After clause (s), the following clauses shall be inserted,


namely:(t) Fails to pay any arrears of any kind due to him to any
Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society District
Central Co-operative bank and District Primary Cooperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank, or
(u) Fails to pay arrears of electricity bills, or

(v) Has not passed matriculation examination or its


equivalent

examination

from

any

recognized

institution board.
Provided that in case of a woman candidate or a
candidate

belonging

to

Scheduled

Caste,

minimum qualification shall be middle pass, or

the

15

(w) Fails to submits self declaration to the effect that he


has a functional toilet at his place of residence.

11.

It is submitted that the requirements as emphasised in the


impugned Ordinance herein are irrational, arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 40 and Part IX of the
Constitution of India.
A true typed copy of the Ordinance No. 5
Extraordinary Gazette Notification dated

published in
14.08.2015 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P 2


12.

That members of the civil society and political parties have


vehemently opposed the proposal due to the prejudice
caused to women, SCs and other underprivileged persons
and thereby hindering inclusive participation for rural

13.

development.
That in spite of calls for a rethink, the Respondent State has
failed to take into consideration that this ordinance would
deny the opportunity of the majority of the rural populations
to contest elections, including denying a large number of
sitting

14.

elected

representatives,

from

contesting

the

forthcoming election 2015.


It is submitted that bringing in this ordinance is against the
inclusive spirit of the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the
Constitution and that the Government had brought these
changes without holding any debate on it in the public
domain or discussing it in the State Assembly which was

16

against democracy. That the Impugned Ordinance was


hurriedly promulgated knowing fully well that elections to

15.

PRIs in the State are round the corner.


That despite protests and meetings of Government officials
with representatives of Panch, Sarpanch and civil society,
the process of elections has been initiated and the State
Election Commission has notified that Panchayati Raj
Institutions Elections will be completed before 30/09/2015.
A True copy of the notification dated 14.08.2015 issued by
the State Election Commission is annexed hereto and

16.

marked as ANNEXURE P 3
That this Honble High Court in the matter of CWP No.
17452 of 2015 titled Ved Wanti Vs. State of Haryana and
another, which is regarding a challenge to clause (v) of
Section 175 of the Act, as inserted by the impugned
Ordinance, was pleased to issue notice of motion to the
respondent state and was further pleased to stay the
operation of clause (v) of Section 175 of the Act to the next
date of hearing which is on 28/08/2015. However the
challenge in that petition is not to the other clauses of
Section 175 of the Act, which is sought to be inserted by the
impugned Ordinance.
A True copy of the order in CWP No. 17452 of 2015 titled Ved
Wanti Vs. State of Haryana and another dated 21.08.2015 is
annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P 4

17

GROUNDS

A. Because the issuance of the impugned ordinance is


malafide, in so far that there was no emergency and
was issued only to bypass democratic scrutiny by the
legislative assembly of the State and to avoid debate,
which is also envisaged under Article 243 F of the
Constitution. That the State Assembly also could have
called for a special session of the Assembly, as it was
done, to ratify the Judicial Appoints Bill.
B. Because the ordinance is ultra vires the powers of the
Governor, there being no emergency, in that avoiding
the presentation and passage of the bill in the State
Assembly is intended only to defeat the constitutional
processes since there was no urgency to introduce a
vital disqualification through an ordinance which
could have awaited a duly enacted law.

C. Because the respondent government is not justified in


notifying the impugned Ordinance disqualifying a
majority of voters from the panchayat elections,
without there being any data or statistical backing for
the same, necessitating such action.

18

D. Because the respondent government is not justified in


disqualifying candidates against whom charges have
been framed in a criminal case for an offence
punishable with imprisonment for not less than 10
years, in Panchayati Raj Institutions when there is no
such power for being elected in Municipal Institutions,
Legislative Assemblies of the States and the Parliament
of India.

E. Because the respondent government is not justified in


disqualifying candidates failed to pay any arears to any
Primary

Agriculture

Cooperative

Society,

District

Central Cooperative Bank and District Primary Cooperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank, in
Panchayati Raj Institutions when there is no such
power for being elected in Municipal Institutions,
Legislative Assemblies of the States and the Parliament
of India.

F. Because the respondent government is not justified in


disqualifying candidates who have failed to pay any
arears of electricity bills, in Panchayati Raj Institutions
when there is no such power for being elected in
Municipal Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the
States and the Parliament of India.

19

G. Because the respondent government is not justified in


disqualifying candidates who have no not have a
functional

toilet

at

their

place

of

residence,

in

Panchayati Raj Institutions when there is no such


power for being elected in Municipal Institutions,
Legislative Assemblies of the States and the Parliament
of India.

H. Because clause (aa) of Section 175 of the Act, as


inserted

by

the

impugned

Ordinance

is

unfair,

arbitrary and illegal because it has no rational Nexus


with the object of the Act. Furthermore, merely
because charges have been framed in a criminal case
against a person, does not mean the said person is
guilty

of

the

said

crimes/criminal

actions,

and

therefore disqualifying a person from holding an office


in the Panchayati Raj institutions, without a conviction
by a court of law would be arbitrary, unconstitutional
and illegal.

I. Because clause (t) of Section 175 of the Act, as


inserted

by

the

impugned

Ordinance

is

unfair,

arbitrary and illegal as mere failure to pay any arrears


to

any

Primary

Agriculture

Cooperative

Society,

District Central Cooperative Bank and District Primary


Co-operative Agriculture Rural Development Bank,

20

cannot and should not be a disqualification for holding


an office in the Panchayati Raj institutions, as the
same would be arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.

J. Because clause (u) of Section 175 of the Act, as


inserted

by

the

impugned

Ordinance

is

unfair,

arbitrary and illegal as mere failure to pay any arrears


of electricity bills, cannot and should not be a
disqualification for holding an office in the Panchayati
Raj institutions, as the same would be arbitrary,
unconstitutional and illegal.

K. Because clause (w) of Section 175 of the Act, as


inserted

by

the

impugned

Ordinance

is

unfair,

arbitrary and illegal as merely because a candidate


does not have a functional toilet at his place of
residence, cannot and should not be a disqualification
for holding an office in the Panchayati Raj institutions,
as the same would be arbitrary, unconstitutional and
illegal, given the social economic conditions in the
State and India, wherein several persons are unable to
maintain toilet facilities at their place of residence due
to social economic reasons, including poverty and
deprivation
elections

and

barring

because

unconstitutional.

of

them
the

from

same

contesting
would

be

21

L. Because the impugned Ordinance disqualifies persons


from contesting and holding office in Panchayati Raj
institutions, thereby further increasing their exclusion
and deprivation.

M. Because,

the

very

these representative institutions

purpose
is

to

give

of
equal

opportunity to all including those who do not have


formal education in schools to be in power in local
governance and a whole segment of people are being
denied representation vide the impugned ordinance.
N. Because the Impugned Ordinance is violative of the
core

constitutional

philosophy

of

democratic

governance in India. That democratic governance and


equality of status and opportunity featuring in the
preamble to the constitution are part of the basic
structure of the constitution.
O. Because the Impugned ordinance is violative of
Articles 14, 15, 19, 40 and Part IX of the Constitution.
P. Because the Impugned Ordinance is violative of Article
19 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
right to contest election is a fundamental right and is
in exercise of the right to freedom of speech and
expression as guaranteed under Article 19 ( 1) ( a) of
the Constitution. That right to contest election is a
core condition of exercise of democracy which is a

22

basic feature of the Constitution of India. That the


right to contest election cannot be curtailed by the
imposition of criteria which are unreasonable and
unrelated to the object sought to be achieved that is
democratic self governance.
Q. Because, the Impugned Ordinance is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Because, the Impugned
Ordinance

is ultra

vires of

Article

14

of

the

Constitution of India inasmuch as it arbitrarily and


unreasonably differentiates between candidates who
possess the prescribed qualification and those who do
not possess the prescribed qualification. Further, the
impugned
candidates
and

ordinance

also

discriminates

having formal educational

candidates

who

are

literate

between

qualifications
even

without

possessing a formal educational qualification. By


disentitling the class of potential candidates who do
not possess formal educational qualifications, the
Impugned Ordinance arbitrarily denies equality before
the law to all such persons. The Honble High Court of
Rajasthan has in fact recognized such a distinction as
unreasonable and arbitrary in Ismail v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1958 Raj 96, wherein, while upholding
the constitutionality of a provision that required

23

candidates to be elected to municipal posts to be able


to read and write in Hindi, stated:
If it were provided in the Rule that the minimum
qualification of literacy would be that the candidate
should have passed the first primary class from a
school, then it would have excluded all those persons
who had studied privately and not joined any school.
That provision would have worked to the detriment of
more persons and it would have unreasonably
excluded those literate persons who had studied
privately or in an unrecognised school and who were
otherwise more literate than the persons who had
passed the first primary class. Or, if the Rule were to
provide that a candidate should be capable of reading
and writing Hindi up to the First Standard of the
Primary Class, even then, there would have been
some vagueness left and there would still be some
discretion left with the person taking the test whether
the candidate fulfills the qualification or not.
R. Because, the impugned ordinance is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution as there is no reasonable nexus
between the criteria laid down in the Impugned
Ordinance and the object that it seeks to achieve. It is
submitted that requirement of formal educational
qualification is not essential for effectively discharging
any duties and functions vested in members of
Panchayat and Zila Parishads. Section 32 of the
Haryana

Act

which

lays

down

the

various

responsibilities of Sarpanch are limited to exercise of


supervisory and administrative oversight over the
functions of Panchayat. Moreover, the exercise of such

24

powers is subject to a resolution, rules or direction of


the concerned State Government. In nutshell, a
Sarpanch is a conduit between the State Government
and the constituents of the Panchayat. Therefore, the
literacy requirement prescribed by the Impugned
Ordinance is irrational, arbitrary and violates the
constitutional equality guaranteed under Article 14.
Honble

Supreme

Court

in

its

judgment

dated

13.03.2003 in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs.


Union of India reported in 2003 (4) SCC 399 , while
deciding on requirement of MLA or MP election
candidates to disclose their educational qualifications,
observed as follows:
Consistent with the principle of adult suffrage, the
Constitution has not prescribed any educational
qualification for being Member of the House of the
People or Legislative Assembly. That apart, I am
inclined to think that the information relating to
educational qualifications of contesting candidates
does not serve any useful purpose in the present

context and scenario. It is a well know fact that


barring a few exceptions, most of the candidates
elected to Parliament or the State Legislatures are
fairly educated even if they are not Graduates or
Post-Graduates. To think of illiterate candidates is
based on a factually incorrect assumption. To say that
well educated persons such as those having graduate
and post-graduate qualifications will be able to serve

25

the people better and conduct themselves in a better


way inside and outside the House is nothing but
overlooking the stark realities. The experience and
events in public life and the Legislatures have
demonstrated that the dividing line between the well
educated and less educated from the point of view of
his/her calibre and culture is rather thin. Much
depends on the character of the individual, the sense
of devotion to duty and the sense of concern to the
welfare of the people. These characteristics are not
the monopoly of well educated persons.
S. Because, the Impugned Ordinance, leads to large
scale exclusion of rural population and denial of
opportunity to contest election in the PRI process of
2015. As per the data available from 2011 Census,
overall

literacy rate of 76.64%, with womens

literacy at 66.77%. In rural areas of Haryana, it was


72.74% overall

, and 60.97% for women.

The Socio-Economic and

Caste Census 2011 has provided the following figures


regarding the literacy rates in the state of Haryana:

26

Total Population
1 = No. of Illiterates
% 1 = Illiterates

16035620
5495399
34.27%

2 = No. of Literates but below


primary
% 2 = Literates but below primary
3 = No. of Primary

1823080

% 3 = Primary
4 = No. of Middle
% 4 = Middle
5 = No. of Secondary
% 5 = Secondary
6 = No. of Higher Secondary
% 6 = Higher Secondary
7 = No. of Graduate or Higher

15.60%
2073654
12.93%
2035958
12.70%
1327897
8.28%
663668

% 7 = Graduate or Higher
8 = No. of Other (Specify
% 8 = Other (Specify)

4.14%
114742
0.72%

11.37%
2500961

A TrueTrue copy of the relevant extract of the SocioEconomic and Caste Census 2011 as available on the
website

27

http://secc.gov.in/statewiseDistrictEducationProfileRe
port dated nil is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P- 5
T. BECAUSE the above extracted SECC data would show
that about 61.24 % population would not be able to
meet the criteria of 8th pass, and 74.17% population
would not be able to meet the criteria of matriculate
pass

as

envisaged

in

the

impugned

ordinance,

therefore excluding almost three fourths of populations


of the state of Haryana from being eligible to contest
for becoming a Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram
Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad.
U. Imposition of a minimum 8th class level of schooling as
a

qualification

disqualification

would
of

therefore

majority

of

to

lead

to

population.

It

is

pertinent mention how the term literate was defined in


the 2001 Census
09. Literates
A person aged 7 years and above who can both read
and write with understanding in any language has
been taken as literate. It is not necessary for a person
to have received any formal education or passed any
minimum educational standard for being treated as
literate. People who were blind and could read in
Braille are treated to be literates.
A person, who can neither read nor write or can only
read but cannot write in any language, is treated as
illiterate. All children of age 6 years or less, even if
going to school and have picked up reading and
writing, are treated as illiterate.

28

V. Because, the Impugned Ordinance disentitles vast


sections of deserving rural population from contesting
for the said positions in PRIs without any fault of
theirs. It is submitted that the literacy rate in the
Country according to census 2011 are abysmally low
(i.e. 74.04%), with rural women's literacy much lower
than

the

average.

It

is

pertinent

to

mention

that literacy as a measure is defined merely as a skill


to read and write, with no conditionality of schooling.

W. According to the census, 31.4% of households in the


state do not have access to toilets. Of the nearly three
million

rural

in the state, 42.3% defecate in the open.

households
Thus

the

imposition, under subclause (w) of section 175 bars


and disqualifies several worthy candidates to the
Panchayati Raj Institution.

X. Because subclause (aa), (t), (u), (v) and (w) of no


rational Nexus with the objects and purpose of the
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994.

Y. Because no survey or statistical analysis has been


carried on by the respondent State to examine the ill
effects of the impugned Ordinance.

29

Z. That the above given figures indicate, the law on the


Right To Free And Compulsory Education, 2009 is a
distant dream for several rural population and the
same is failure of the State Government. The State has
failed in its duty to provide free and accessible
education and for that reason also cannot insist on
this precondition.

AA.

Because the ordinance, though facially gender

neutral, has a disparate impact on men and women in


that there is a marked difference in the literacy and
educational qualifications between men and women,
denying more opportunity to women than to men.

AB.

Because women are prevented by the gendered

roles ascribed to them from entering educational


institutions including schools, their destiny being seen
as lived in the private sphere and hence denied access
to education

AC.

Because the whole purpose of reservation for

women is to take them from the private sphere to that


public sphere and the condition imposed vide the
impugned ordinance negates the object and purpose of
reservations.

30

AD.

Because the State has failed in its obligation to

provide the infrastructure to build the capability of


education and hence cannot insist by law that
candidates in order to contest election ought to have a
certain minimum education.

AE.

Because, in any event, the Right To Free And

Compulsory Education Act was enacted only in 2009 ,


hence assuming it is implemented in full, a person
would acquire the required eligibility only in 2029/30
and hence it is unreasonable and discriminatory to
insists at this point on education as a condition of
eligibility

AF.

Because

the

impugned

ordinance

cannot

disentitle a person to exercise his/her fundamental


right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) to contest
Panchayat

elections

due

to

the

failure

of

the

Government to provide compulsory primary education


to all its citizen. That the citizen cannot be made to
pay the price for failure of the Government to provide
education to all. Because, the lack of education among
the rural population is squarely a failure of the State
Government and therefore it is discriminatory to
disentitle citizens without any fault of theirs. Prior to
the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002,

31

the Article 45 in its original form stated that The


State shall endeavor to provide, within a period of ten
years from the Commencement of this Constitution, for
free and compulsory education for all children until they
complete the age of fourteen years. Thus the State was
under a constitutional obligation to provide free and
compulsory education to children, which it did not and
as

such

providing

educational

qualification

for

contesting Panchayat election is discriminatory and


violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

AG.

Because, the impugned ordinance, is violative of

Article 15 of the Constitution. That Article 15 not only


provides that the State shall not discriminate against
any citizen on grounds only of sex, but Article 15 (3)
also provides that nothing in the said Article shall
prevent the State from making any special provision
for women and children. It is submitted that, the
parliament

in

its

wisdom

has

brought

in

the

73rd Constitutional amendment, whereby Article 15 (3)


has

been

further

given

expression

in

terms

of

providing 50% reservation for women in Panachyati


Raj Institutions vide Article 243 D. Moreover the data
stated herein above also indicates that female illiteracy
is very high in Haryana. Thus, in such circumstance,

32

the impugned ordinance makes the special provision of


reservation for women an otiose and a large segment of
women would be disqualified to contest election and
would not be able to reap the benefits of special
provisions made in their favour.

AH.

Because,

Amendment)

the

Act,

Constitution

1992

(Seventy-third

(73rd Amendment)

which

accorded constitutional legitimacy to the Panchayat


Raj Institutions does not impose any requirement of
formal

educational

qualifications

for

becoming

member of the Panchayat. The same being the


intention of the Parliament has been reiterated in the
Report of Committee of Nyaya Panchayat prepared by
the Union Minister of Panchayati Raj (2007) in the
following words:

The Indian Constitution does not wisely enact a


literacy qualification for adult suffrage, meaning both
the right to contest and vote at elections. The
Panchayati

Raj

institutions,

conceived,

provide

for

no

as

constitutionally

literacy/numeracy

thresholds (and rightly so) for the constitutionally


mandated tasks of democratic decentralized forms of
local governance. Why, we may well ask, be the
situation any the different with the decentralization of
NPS adjudicative functions at the local level? The
objection to the 'lay' and elected NPs, seen in this
light, remains simply a function of unconstitutional
prejudice.

33

AI. Because, the Impugned Ordinance is contrary to the


letter and spirit of the Part IX of the Constitution as
amended

by

the

Constitution

(Seventy-third

Amendment) Act, 1992 (73rd Amendment) introduced


to accord constitutional supremacy to Panchayat Raj
Institution (PRIs) thereby recognizing their importance
as a tool of rural emancipation and democracy. The
Honble Supreme Court in Bhanumati v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [2010] 7 SCR 585, made the following
observations on the importance of PRIs in the
constitutional framework:

Amendment metamorphosed to a distinct part of


Constitutional dispensation with detailed provision for
functioning of Panchayat. The main purpose behind
this is to ensure democratic decentralization on the
Gandhian principle of participatory democracy so that
the Panchayat may become viable and responsive
peoples bodies as an institution of governance and
thus it may acquire the necessary status and function
with dignity by inspiring respect of common man.
AJ.

Because, the Impugned Ordinance purports to

relegate our country back to dark ages which has


governed through facile, top-down and centralized
approach and thereby neglecting the needs and
concerns of the rural populace. The Honble Supreme
Court has time and again lamented on the fact that
the dominance of few urban educated persons in

34

matters of governance and decision making process is


antithesis to local self-governance or Gandhian vision
of Gram Swaraj. In [2010] 7 SCR 585, this Honble
Court has observed that the vast majority of the rural
masses still have to obey decisions taken by few people
living in metropolitan centers representing an alien
culture and ethos.

AK.

Because, the Impugned Ordinance would lead to

ascendancy of feudal mindset among rural populace


which is starkly contrary to the purpose of the
73rd Amendment. The Honble Supreme Court on
several

occasions

has

strongly

expressed

its

discontentment in realizing the constitutional ideal of


local self-government. The Honble Supreme Court in
[2010] 7 SCR 585 noted that:

The Panchayati Raj Institutions structured under the


said amendment are meant to initiate changes so that
the rural feudal oligarchy lose their ascendancy in
village affairs and the voiceless masses, who have
been rather amorphous, may realize their growing
strength. Unfortunately, effect of these changes by
way of Constitutional Amendment has not been fully
realized in the semi-feudal set up of Indian politics in
which still voice of reason is drowned in an uneven
conflict with the mythology of individual infallibility and
omniscience. Despite high ideals of Constitutional
philosophy, rationality in our polity is still subordinated
to political exhibitionism, intellectual timidity and petty

35

manipulation.

The

73rd

Amendment

of

the

Constitution is addressed to remedy these evils.


AL.

Because, the Impugned Ordinance is an assault

on the rural autonomy, inasmuch as it arbitrarily and


unreasonably denies effective participation of rural
population which is necessary for inclusive and
representative governance of local bodies. That the
PRIs

were

conceived

to

cure

infirmities

in

representation of all sections of rural population. The


Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the
73rd Amendments states as follows:

Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in


existence for a long time, it has been observed that
these institutions have not been able to acquire the
status and dignity of viable and responsive peoples
bodies due to a number of reasons including absence
of

regular

elections,

prolonged

suppressions,

insufficient representation of weaker sections like


Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women,
inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial
resources.
AM.

Because the Haryana Panchayat Act, 1994 came

into force with an aim to enable villagers to govern


their village over issues of local importance and resolve
them. That at the time of enforcement, the Act did not
lay down any minimum educational qualification to
contest elections. Statement of object and reasons of
the Haryana Panchayat Act is as under:

36

Statement of object and reasons. - Though the


Panchayati Raj Institutions have been existence in
the country for a long period, it has been observed
that these institutions have not been able to acquire
the status and dignity of viable and responsive
people's bodies due to a variety of reasons including
absence

of

supersessions,

regular
inadequate

elections,

prolonged

representation

of

weaker sections like Scheduled Castes and


women, insufficient devolution of powers and lack of
financial resources.
In the light of past experience and in view of the
shortcomings which have been noticed, a new Part IX
relating to Panchayats has been added in the
Constitution of India by the Constitution (73rd
Amendment) Act, 1992, which has come into force
with effect from 24th April, 1993 and the States have
been directed to amend or appeal their existing law
which is inconsistent with the provisions of the said
amendment within one year from the commencement
of the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992.
Accordingly, it is proposed to repeal the Punjab Gram
Panchayat Act 1952 (Punjab Act No. 4 of 1953) and
the Punjab Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Punjab Act
No. 3 of 1961) and to formulate a new single Act,
namely "The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994," in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
(73rd Amendment) Act, 1992.

The Bill,inter alia to (a) establish three tier system of Panchayats in the
State,

i.e.

Gram

Panchayats

at

village

level,

Panchayat Samitis at block level and Zila Parishads


at district level;

37

(b) establish a Gram Panchayat at village level having


population of not less than 500 giving relaxation of
minimum population of 500 consisting minimum of 6
panches and maximum 20 panches on the basis of
population excluding Sarpanch; and with a UpSarpanch to be elected by and from amongst
Panches;
(c) establish a Panchayat Samiti at block level
consisting of minimum 10 members and maximum 30
members on the basis of population of the block.
(d) establish a Zila Parishad at district level consisting
of minimum 10 members and maximum 30 members
on the basis of population of the district;
(e) elect Sarpanches, all Panches and Members of
Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads by direct
election by voters of the wards to be constituted in
each Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila
Parishad for the purpose of election;
(f) provide representation to Scheduled Castes on the
basis of their population and the population of
Panchayats at each level in proportion to their
population and the number of seats to be allotted in
the wards having majority population of these castes.

(g) provide representation of women (including


Scheduled Castes women) equal to one third seats of
the total seats in each Panchayat at each level;
(h) review the reserved seats after every census;
(i)

provide

representation

to

the

offices

of

Sarpanches, Chairmen and Presidents to Scheduled


Castes on the basis of their population and to women
being not less than one third of such offices;

38

(j) provide representation to M.L.As. concerned in


each Panchayat Samitis and M.Ps. concerned in
each Zila Parishad as ex-officio members with right of
vote in all proceedings except the election and no
confidence motion against Chairman/Vice-Chairman,
President/Vice President;
(k) provide representation to Sarpanches equal to the
one-fifth of the total seats in each Panchayat Samiti,
as ex-officio members for every one year; by rotation
and lots;
(l) provide reservation of one seat in Panchayats at
each level to the persons belonging to Backward
Classes in wards having majority population of
Backward Classes and to review after every census;
(m) disqualify persons for election of Panchayats at
each level, having more than two children after one
year of the date of commencement of this Act to
popularise

Family

Welfare/Family

Planning

Programme;

(n) devolution of powers and responsibilities upon


Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis with
respect to the preparation of plans for economic
development

and

social

justice

and

the

implementation of development schemes including


the matters listed in 11th Schedule of the Constitution
of India;
(o) devolve powers upon Zila Parishads to approve
the Budget of Panchayat Samitis and give them
advice for better performance, within their jurisdiction;
(p) fix tenure of five year of Gram Panchayats,
Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads and in case of
dissolution, to hold election within six months;

39

(q) constitute a Finance Commission to review the


financial position and recommend resources of
income and principles of grant-in-aid from the
Consolidated Fund of the State and determine the
taxes to

be

appropriated by, or assigned to

Panchayati Raj Institutions; and


(r) constitute a State Election Commission and vest in
the State Election Commission the superintendence,
direction and control of election to the Panchayati Raj
Institutions and Municipalities.
The Act seeks to achieve the aforesaid objectives.

AN.

Because, the Impugned Ordinance is a serious

assault on the participatory democracy which is an


integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
Article 40 of the Constitution of India which provides
for Organization of Village Panchayats lays that: The
State shall take steps to organise village panchayats
and endow them with such powers and authority as
may be necessary to enable them to function as units of
self-government.

AO.

Because, the effect of the Impugned Ordinance

causes grave prejudice to weaker sections of the


society, including rural poor, women, SCs, STs and
OBCs and is contrary to the objective of the Part IX of

40

the

Constitution

and

the

Haryana

Act

enacted

pursuant to it.
AP.Because, the Impugned Ordinance is violative of the
spirit

Article

243D

which

provides mandatory

reservation of one-third of all seats in Panchayats to


women introduced with a view to encourage women
from all backgrounds, and therefore discriminatory.
AQ.

Because, the Impugned Ordinance is violative of

the spirit of Article 243D which provides mandatory


reservation of seats in Panchayats for SCs and STs in
proportion to their share of the Panchayat, introduced
with a view to encourage inclusive growth of rural
population, and therefore discriminatory.
AR.

Because, this Honble Court has held that a

legislation is not valid merely because there is


reasonable classification and that it has rational
relation with the object. In (1973) 1 SCC 500, this
Honble

Court

held

that

legislation

is

unconstitutional if it results in discrimination of one


section of minority, even if the legislation passes
muster under Article 14.
AS.

Because,

inconsistent to

the

impugned

ordinance

is

Article 21 of Universal declaration of

41

Human

Rights

1950

and

Article

25

of

The

International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights


1973, which provides right to every citizen to take part
in public affairs and contest election without any
unreasonable restrictions. That on a number of
occasions this Honble Court of India has taken note of
international conventions and norms. Article 21 of
UDHR 1950 provides as follows:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the


government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public
service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed
in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by
secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures

Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political


Rights states:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity,
without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2
and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs,
directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic
elections which shall be, by universal and equal

42

suffrage

and

shall

be

held

by

secret

ballot,

guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the


electors
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to
public service in his country
AT.Because, the Constitution of India does not prescribe
any educational qualifications for exercising adult
suffrage, including for election to the Parliament of
India and State Legislature. Therefore, the educational
requirement for members of PRIs is discriminatory. In
this regard reference may be made to Article 101 and
102 of the Constitution of India which has relevant
provisions for Vacation of Seats and Disqualification of
Membership respectively, as well as to provisions of the
Representation of the People Act,1951.

Article 101: Vacation of Seats


(1)

No person shall be a member of both Houses of

Parliament

and

provision

shall

be

made

by

Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is


chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one
House or the other.
(2)

No person shall be a member both of Parliament

and of a House of the Legislature of a State, and if a


person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of
a House of the Legislature of [a State], then, at the
expiration of such period as may be specified in rules
made by the President, that person's seat in
Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has

43

previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the


State.
(3)

If a member of either House of Parliament:-

(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications


mentioned in [clause (1) or clause (2) of article 102],
or
(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand
addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the
case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the
Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,] his
seat shall thereupon become vacant:
[Provided that in the case of any resignation referred
to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or
otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks
fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,
is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or
genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.]
(4)

If for a period of sixty days a member of either

House of Parliament is without permission of the


House absent from all meetings thereof, the House
may declare his seat vacant:
Provided that in computing the said period of sixty
days no account shall be taken of any period during
which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for
more than four consecutive days.
Article 102: Disqualification of Members
(1)

A person shall be disqualified for being

chosen as, and for being, a member of either House


of Parliament
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the
Government of India or the Government of any State,

44

other than an office declared by Parliament by law not


to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared
by a competent court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily
acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under
any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a
foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made
by Parliament.
[Explanation.For the purposes of this clause] a
person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit
under the Government of India or the Government of
any State by reason only that he is a Minister either
for the Union or for such State.
(2)

A person shall be disqualified for being a

member of either House of Parliament if he is so


disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.]
AU.

Part II of the Representation of the People Act,

deals with the qualification and disqualifications. In


brief the qualifications pertain to the fact that the
person has to be an elector of the constituency in
which he/she is desirous of contesting the poll,
besides the fact that, in cases of reserved constituency
the person desirous of contesting election ought to
belongs to the category, for which the seat is reserved.
So far as disqualifications are concerned, it is provided

45

in Chapter III of Part II of the Representation of People


Act. Section 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A provides several
disqualifications, which does not include, educational
qualification, and as such the impugned Ordinance
introduces a disqualification which is neither there in
the Constitution nor there in the Representation of the
People Act, and as such is discriminatory to people
desirous of contesting Panchyat Polls.
AV.Because, the reasons stated by the State Government
to justify the Impugned Ordinance is unsubstantiated,
untrue and is a sad reflection of disrespect to rural
autonomy. There is no proof that a formally educated
member of the Panchayat can strengthen and improve
the Governance and check financial irregularities in
contrast to an illiterate who has not obtained a formal
educational qualification as recognized by the State
Government. Moreover, the problem of corruption and
other irregularities is a failure of the State machineries
which is to adducible to representative of people.
AW.

Because election to the post of Sarpanch is not a

Government

employment

therefore,

no

minimum

education qualification criteria to contest the election


for the Sarpanch can be validly be introduced by way
amending Ordinance 2014.

46

AX.

Because, it is submitted that State Government

has powers to introduce compulsory training for


members of Panchayat to cure the evil sought to be
achieved through the Impugned Ordinance.
AY.

Because,

the

impugned

Ordinance

is

also

discriminatory against rural population in terms of


electing their representatives in local government
whereas in urban areas people are facing no such
limitations.
AZ.

Because,

Governor

ordinance

envisaged

making

under

Article

power

of

the

213

of

the

Constitution ought not to have been exercised, as it


has been done in the present case. That under the
Constitutional scheme the said power ought to be
exercised only when the circumstances exist which
render it necessary for the Governor to take necessary
action. Moreover, the exercise of the said power to the
satisfaction of the Governor is subject to judicial
review. In the present case, no such circumstances
exist to call for the exercise of power under Article 213
of the Constitution. On the contrary, the data placed
herein above is evident of the fact that, there is large
scale

illiteracy

amongst

rural

masses,

more

so

amongst women, and as such any introduction of

47

educational
purpose

qualification

of

participatory

would
PRIs

defeat

the

very

and

as

such

unconstitutional
BA.

Because it was held in the matter of Dulari

Devi and others Versus State of Rajasthan and


others,

AIR 2015 Rajasthan 84:

We are, prima-facie, satisfied that in the State of


Rajasthan in which the rate of literacy and the
opportunity of formal education was limited, the
prescription of any disqualification on the ground of
qualification for contesting elections in the Panchayati
Raj Institutions, excluding the masses, who did not
have an opportunity of formal education, is violative of
the right of equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Panchayati Raj Institutions
foster democratic principles of governance at the
grass root level. Article 40 in Part IV (Directive
Principles

of

State

Policy),

provided

for

an

organisation of village panchayats. The State was


under an obligation to take steps to organise village
panchayats and endow them with such powers and
authority as may be necessary, to enable them to
function as units of self-government. The 73rd
Amendment(Rajiv Gandhi Amendment), introducing
Part IX-The Panchayats, in the Constitution of India,
containing Article 243, 243A and 243O, gave the
Panchayats a constitutional status. A Gram Sabha
consists of persons registered in the electoral rolls
relating to a village comprised within the area of
Panchayat at the village level under Article 243(b).
The 'Panchayat', defined under Article 243(d), is

48

provided

as

an

institution

of

self

governance

constituted under Article 243B, for the rural areas.


The entire body of villagers are given rights to
participate in the meetings of the Panchayat for
inclusive

self

governance,

self

rule

and

self

determination for social up liftment, which is not


dependent on any educational qualification. The
disqualification for membership, under Article 243F of
the Constitution, to be prescribed by the Legislature
of the State, could not have provided for any such
condition attached, which may have taken away the
rights

of

the

self

governance,

except

for

disqualifications, which have material object to


achieve, such as the character, integrity or morality of
the person to represent. The persons who are
engaged in unlawful activities or are defaulters, or
acquired any disqualification which may have any
nexus with the object, sought to be achieved, namely
for representation, may be excluded participation in
Panchayats. Any other disqualification will negate the
object of self governance at grass root level, peoples
participation, and social justice.

32. We do not find that the State Government has


placed before us any empirical data, which may
suggest that there are sufficient number of qualified
persons available in the rural areas, which will not
amount to exclusion of the large number of people in
the village, especially women, to be represented, to
lead the Panchayati Raj Institutions. We are also
satisfied that even if such empirical data was
collected, the exclusion of those who did not have an
opportunity of formal education, could not have been
denied participation in the democratic institutions and
for this reason, no educational qualifications have

49

been prescribed for elections in any of the institutions


including the Panchayati Raj Institutions, or in the
Legislative Assembly, or even Parliament in India.
One such attempt failed in the State of Maharashtra.
In fact, prescription of educational qualification for
inclusion for contesting elections in any democratic
institution, unless there is strong nexus with the
object, to be achieved, is an anti thesis to the
democratic governance of the institution in a republic.
It is a negation of the very object of purpose of
enacting the Constitution of India, described in its
preamble.

The

poor,

underprivileged

and

downtrodden, cannot be denied participation in a


democracy merely on the ground that she does not
have educational qualification for such inclusion.
33. In order to lead in a democratic governance, a
person is required to understand the needs of social
development and require the mental attribute of being
wise in the estimation of the people, who elect her for
representation. Any law which disqualifies a large
section of rural population on the ground of non
attaining the educational qualifications, is thus, primafacie, arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.
34. We are also not prima-facie satisfied with the
contention that large amount of money placed in the
hands of the Sarpanchas, issuance of cheques by
them, preparation of accounts and their official
capacity as an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act,
2005, or any Government Order, which may make
them

accountable,

educational
Panchayat

would

qualification
is

provided

require
inasmuch

with

minimum
as

every

Secretariat,

which

includes a Panchayat Assistant, an Accountant and a


Junior Engineer. It is, therefore, not necessary for a
Sarpanch to have minimum educational qualifications
for representation of her people in the Panchayat, or
Zila Parishad. She has sufficient assistance of

50

persons with minimum qualification to advise her for


proper discharge of her duties and functions. The
formal education may have relevance in the future
when the goal of universal primary education is
achieved, with the enactment of Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, enforced
on 01.04.2010, but a person who is to be more than
21 years of age in rural areas with no opportunity of
primary or secondary level of education in the
absence of schools, may not be disqualified to take
part for representation

in the

Panchayati

Raj

Institutions. The republicanism in the country has


allowed many persons, who did not even have any
formal education, to rise and lead. Some of them had
also rises to the position of Chief Ministers of the
States.

35. We cannot, but agree with the argument of the


Advocate General that the motives for promulgating
the Ordinance and the existence of circumstances,
which rendered it necessary for the Governor to take
immediate action, are not subject to judicial review.
An Ordinance promulgated in the Legislative powers
of the Governor, has all the attributes of Legislation,
which is required to be ratified by the Legislature
under Article 213, 213(2)(b) of the Constitution of
India. The Ordinance, however, is the law which can
be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. If the disqualification prescribed
by the Ordinance deprives a large section of the
society to participate in the democratic institution of
Panchayati Raj and runs counter to the object of the
73rd

Amendment,

it

may

be

unconstitutional by the Court of law

declared

as

51

BB.

That in Bhanumati And Others v. State of

Uttar Pradesh Through its Principal Secretary


And Others (supra), the Honble Supreme Court,
referring to the debates in the Constituent Assembly,
which led to the enactment of the Constitution of
India, referred to the 73rd Amendment as a powerful
tool of social engineering held as follows

13. The Constitution's quest for an inclusive


governance voiced in the Preamble is not consistent
with panchayat being treated merely as a unit of selfgovernment and only as part of directive principle. If
the relevant Constituent Assembly Debates are
perused one finds that even that constitutional
provision

about

panchayat

was

inducted

after

strenuous efforts by some of the members. From the


debates we do not fail to discern a substantial
difference of opinion between one set of members
who wanted to finalise the Constitution solely on the
parliamentary

model

by

totally

ignoring

the

importance of panchayat principles and another


group of members who wanted to mould our
Constitution

on

Gandhian

principles

of

Village

Panchayat.
22. Under the Seventy-third Amendment of the
Constitution, panchayat became an "institution of selfgovernance" which was previously a mere unit, under
Article 40. The Seventy-third Amendment heralded a
new era but it took nearly more than four decades for
our Parliament to pass this epoch-making Seventythird Constitution Amendment- a turning point in the
history of local self-governance with sweeping
consequences in view of decentralisation, grass-root

52

democracy, people's participation, gender equality


and social justice.
23. Decentralisation is perceived as a precondition for
preservation of the basic values of a free society.
Republicanism which is the "sine qua non" of this
amendment is compatible both with democratic
socialism

and

radical

liberalism.

Republicanism

presupposes that laws should be made by active


citizens working in concert. Price of freedom is not
merely eternal vigilance but perpetual and creative
citizen's activity.
24. This Seventy-third Amendment is a very powerful
"tool of social engineering" and has unleashed
tremendous potential of social transformation to bring
about a sea change in the age-old, oppressive, antihuman and status quoist traditions of Indian society. It
may be true that this amendment will not see a
quantum jump but it will certainly initiate a thaw and
pioneer a major change, may be in a painfully slow
process.
26. What was in a nebulous state, as one of the
directive principles under Article 40, through the
Seventy-third

Constitutional

Amendment

metamorphosed to a distinct part of constitutional


dispensation with detailed provision for functioning of
panchayat. The main purpose behind this is to ensure
democratic decentralisation on the Gandhian principle
of participatory democracy so that the panchayat may
become viable and responsive people's bodies as an
institution of governance and thus it may acquire the
necessary status and function with dignity by inspiring
respect of common man. In our judgment, this
Seventy-third Amendment of the Constitution was
introduced for strengthening the Preambular vision of
democratic republicanism which is inherent in the
constitutional framework."

53

BC.

Because, the Petitioners are constrained to

approach this Honble Court, under Article 226 of the


Constitution

of

India,

because,

the

impugned

ordinance, violates fundamental rights of the public of


Haryana. Further the State Election Commission has
issued the impugned notification on 14.08.2015,
stating therein that the process of election shall end
on 30.09.2015.
BD.

That the impugned actions of the Respondents

are arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 14 of the


Constitution of India.

BE.

That even before coming into force of the Part IX

in the Constitution of India in 1992, containing


articles 243, 243A to 243 O, Haryana had the
Panchayat Act. In 1953, the Haryana Panchayat Act
was enacted and Village Panchayats were established
throughout the state. Haryana has the distinction of
being

the

pioneer

in

accepting

the

scheme

of

democratic decentralization envisaging a three-tier


system of representative bodies at the village, block,
and district levels.

BF.

That the term Panchayat is defined in Article

243(d) of the Constitution which means an institution

54

(by

whatever

name

called)

of

self-government

constituted under article 243B, for the rural areas.

BG.

That

the

purpose

and

object

of

having

Panchayats is to devolve power of local self-government


at

the

grassroots

level.

The

said

Part-IX

was

introduced by the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act,


1992, w.e.f. 24th April, 1993.

BH.

That the power, authorities and responsibilities

of Panchayats are provided under Article 243G of the


Constitution of India which is reproduced below:

243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats:Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature
of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such
powers and authority and may be necessary to enable them
to function as institutions of self-government and such law
may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and
responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level,
subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with
respect tothe preparation of plans for economic development and
social justice;
the implementation of schemes for economic development
and social justice as may be entrusted to them including
those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh
Schedule.

55

BI. That the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution of


India referred to under Article 243G reads as follows:

ELEVENTH SCHEDULE
[Article 243 G]

1. Agriculture, including agricultural extension.


2. Land improvement, implementation of land reforms,
land consolidation and soil conservation.
3. Minor irrigation, water management and watershed
development.
4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry.
5. Fisheries.
6. Social forestry and farm forestry.
7. Minor forest produce.
8. Small scale industries, including food processing
industries.
9. Khadi, village and cottage industries.
10. Rural housing.
11. Drinking water.
12. Fuel and fodder.
13. Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other
means of communication.
14. Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity.
15. Non-conventional energy sources.

56

16. Poverty alleviation programme.


17. Education, including primary and secondary schools.
18. Technical training and vocational education.
19. Adult and non-formal education.
20. Libraries.
21. Cultural activities.
22. Markets and fairs.
23. Health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary
health centres and dispensaries.
24. Family welfare.
25. Women and child development.
26. Social welfare, including welfare of the handicapped
and mentally retarded.
27. Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular, of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
28. Public distribution system.
29. Maintenance of community assets.

BJ.

That

the

Article

243

(F)

deals

with

the

disqualifications for membership of a Panchayat in


various capacities. Article 243 (F) is reproduced herein
under for ready reference of the Honble Court as
under:-

243F. Disqualifications for membership.-

57

A person shall

be disqualified for being chosen

as, and for being, a member of a Panchayatif he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time
being in force

for the purposes of elections to the

Legislature of the State concerned:


Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the
ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if
he has attained the age of twenty-one years;
if he is so disqualified by or under any law made
by the Legislature of the State.
If any question arises as to whether a member of a
Panchayat has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question
shall be referred for the decision of such authority and
in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by
law, provide.

A bare perusal of aforesaid Article provides that a


person can only be disqualified by or under any law
made by the legislature of the State.
That in view of the 73rd amendment, of the Constitution
of India, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act was passed in
1994. The Act incorporated mandatory provisions of the
73rd amendment, besides a few others such as the
provisions on Gram Sabha and reservation in the
election of members as well as chairman of such
Sabhas for people belonging to OBC category. The
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinunder
referred as Act of 1994) provides functions and
powers of PRIs.

58

BK.

That one of the important schemes which is

implemented by the Panchayats is the Mahatama


Gandhi

National

Rural

Employment

Guarantee

Scheme (MGNREGA). Funding for the said Scheme


in relation to wages comes entirely from the Central
Government

to

the

State

Governments.

State

Governments makes grants scheme under that Act in


relation to the material component in the rural areas.
The implementation of the Scheme is delegated to the
Panchayats. However, it bears mentioning that the
following

officers

of

the

State

Government

are

appointed to assist the Panchayats in its working:

1. Panchayat Secretary, called the Gram Sewak;

2. Rozgar Assistant, called the Rozgar Sahayak;

3. Data Entry Operator;

4. An Accountant; and

5.

BL.
direct

Junior Engineer.

Because it is submitted that there will be a


and

inevitable

consequences

of

the

disqualification based on education and other criteria


as introduced by the impugned ordinance rendering
the ordinance unconstitutional.

It is submitted that

59

introduction

of

the

educational

and

other

qualifications has resulted in denial of opportunity to


contest the elections and has also denied to the voter a
choice of candidates rendering the ordinance arbitrary
and unconstitutional.

BM.

Because

it

is

well-established

that,

the

differentia which is the basis of the classification and


the object of the Act are distinct things and what is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between
them.

In

short,

while

Article

14

forbids

class

discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing


liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a
large number of other persons similarly situated in
relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the
liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid
classification for the purpose of legislation, provided
such classification is not arbitrary in the sense above
mentioned. [R.K. Garg v. UOI, 1981 (4) SCC 675,
Para 6] However, the whole object and purpose of Part
IX of the Constitution of India to bring democracy to
the

grassroots

level

have

been

frustrated

by

introducing a disqualification which has no rational


nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, viz.,
local self governance.

60

BN.

Because it is surprising and astonishing that

the aforesaid amendment was made in a hot-haste by


the respondents without making any study in regard
to the same.

BO.

Because the petitioners submits that the said

disqualification is unconstitutional and ultra vires the


powers of the State as also ultra vires Part IX of the
Constitution of India, in as much as it effectively
disqualifies a large majority of the persons from
contesting elections to the Gram Panchayat, to the
Panchayat

Samitis,

and

Zila

Parishads

resulting

exclusion of eligible persons from contesting elections.


The

said

exclusion

disproportionately

disqualifies

women as the literacy level of women in the State of


Haryana is lower than that of men.

BP.

That the data pertaining to Haryanas literacy

rates would reveal that for people born before the 80s,
who had very little opportunity to go to school, the new
rules about educational qualification has meant a
complete exclusion from the PRI governance setup. It
is important to note that the census data shows only
literacy rates. Being literate does not qualify you for
contesting in the PRIs. What

is

required

is

the

61

academic qualification of being a 8th pass for Women


and SCs or 10th pass for the rest.

It is submitted that the census data of 2011 has


still not released the data of age against educational
qualifications and therefore, the

number of women

being excluded cannot be known.

BQ.

That earlier also, when the State Government

made the qualification of not more than two children


in the year 1994, then also a cut off date was
prescribed in the year 1995.

BR.

Because the impugned Ordinance, by the State

of Haryana prescribes for the disqualification of


persons from contesting Panchayat elections based on
educational qualification at the level of the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad.

It is submitted that no such disqualification is


provided

in

the

Constitution

of

India

for

disqualification of elections for Members of Parliament


or to the State Assembly, and for that reason also the

62

said ordinance is bad in law, discriminatory and


violates Article 14.

BS.

Because the Constitution of India does not

prescribe any educational qualifications for exercising


adult suffrage, including for election to the Parliament
of

India

and

State

Legislature.

Therefore,

the

educational requirement for members of PRIs is


discriminatory. In this regard reference may be made
to Article 101 and 102 of the Constitution of India
which has relevant provisions for Vacation of Seats
and Disqualification of Membership respectively, as
well as to provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951.

Article 101: Vacation of Seats


(1)

No person shall be a member of both Houses

of Parliament

and provision shall be made by

Parliament by law for the

vacation

by

person who is chosen a member of both


Houses of his seat in one House or the other.

(2)

No person shall be a member both of

Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a


State, and if a person is chosen a

member both

of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature


of [a State], then, at the expiration of such
period as may be

specified in rules made by the

President, that person's seat in

Parliament

shall

63

become

vacant,

unless

he

has

previously

resigned his seat in the Legislature of the


State.
(3)
(a)

If a member of either House of Parliament:becomes subject to any of the disqualifications

mentioned in [clause (1) or clause (2) of article 102],


or
(b)

resigns his seat by writing under his hand

addressed to

the

Chairman or the Speaker,

as the case may be, and

his resignation is accepted

by the Chairman or the

Speaker, as the case may

be,] his seat shall thereupon

become vacant:

[Provided that in the case of any resignation referred


to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or
otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks
fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,
is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or
genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.]
(4)

If for a period of sixty days a member of either

House of

Parliament is without permission of the

House absent from all

meetings

thereof,

the

House may declare his seat vacant:


Provided that in computing the said period of sixty
days no account shall be taken of any period during
which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for
more than four consecutive days.
Article 102: Disqualification of Members
(1)

A person shall be disqualified for being chosen

as, and for

being, a member of either House of

Parliament
(a)

if he holds any office of profit under the

Government of

India or the Government of any

64

State, other than an

office

declared

Parliament by law not to disqualify


(b)

its holder;

if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared

by a

competent court;

(c)

if he is an un-discharged insolvent;

(d)

by

if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily


acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is

under any

acknowledgment

adherence to a
(e)

of

allegiance

or

foreign State;

if he is so disqualified by or under any law

made by

Parliament.

[Explanation.For the purposes of this clause] a


person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit
under the Government of India or the Government of
any State by reason only that he is a Minister either
for the Union or for such State.
(2)

A person shall be disqualified for being a

member of either

House of Parliament if he is so

disqualified under the Tenth

Schedule.]

Part II of the Representation of the People Act, deals


with the qualification and disqualifications. In brief the
qualifications pertain to the fact that the person has to
be an elector of the constituency in which he/she is
desirous of contesting the poll, besides the fact that,
in cases of reserved constituency the person desirous
of contesting election ought to belong to the category,
for

which

the

seat

is

reserved.

So

far

as

disqualifications are concerned, it is provided in


Chapter III of Part II of the Representation of People
Act. Section 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A provides several
disqualifications, which does not include, educational
qualification, and as such the impugned Ordinance
introduces a disqualification which is neither there in

65

the Constitution nor there in the Representation of the


People Act, and as such is discriminatory to people
desirous of contesting Panchyat Polls.
Qualification

for

membership

of

the

State

Legislature
Article 173 of the Constitution of India
Qualification for membership of the State Legislature
A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a
seat in the Legislature of a State unless he
(a)

is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes

before some person


by the Election

authorised in that behalf

Commission

an

oath

affirmation according to the form set


the purpose in the
(b)

or
out for

Third Schedule;

is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative

Assembly, not less than

twenty five years of age

and in the case of a seat in the

Legislative

Council, not less than thirty years of age; and


(c)

possesses such other qualifications as may be

prescribed in

that

behalf by or under any law

made by Parliament.
Disqualifications described under the Representation
of Peoples Act, 1951, are as follows:
8. Disqualification on conviction for certain
offences.
(1) A person convicted of an offence punishable
under (a) section 153A (offence of promoting
enmity between different groups on ground of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery) or
section

171F

(offence

of

undue

influence

or

66

personation at an election) or sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 376 or section 376A or section
376B or section 376C or section 376D (offences
relating to rape) or section 498A (offence of cruelty
towards a woman by husband or relative of a
husband) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of
section 505 (offence of making statement creating or
promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or
offence relating to such statement in any place of
worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance

of

religious

worship

or

religious

ceremonies) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);


or (b) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of
1955)

which

provides

for

punishment

for

the

preaching and practice of "untouchability", and for the


enforcement of any disability arising therefrom; or (c)
section

11 (offence

of

importing

or

exporting

prohibited goods) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of


1962); or (d) sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a
member of an association declared unlawful, offence
relating to dealing with funds of an unlawful
association or offence relating to contravention of an
order made in respect of a notified place) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of
1967); or (e) the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act,
1973 (46 of 1973); or (f) the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(g) section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts) or
section 4 (offence of committing disruptive activities)
of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or h) section 7 (offence of
contravention of the provisions of sections 3 to 6) of
the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act,
1988 (41 of 1988); or (i) section 125 (offence of
promoting enmity between classes in connection with
the election) or section 135 (offence of removal of
ballot papers from polling stations) or section 135A
(offence of booth capturing) of clause (a) of sub-

67

section (2) of section 136 (offence of fraudulently


defacing or fraudulently destroying any nomination
paper) of this Act; 1 [or] 1 [(j) section 6 (offence of
conversion of a place of worship) of the Places of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991;] 2 [or] 3 [(k)
section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian National Flag
or the Constitution of India) or section 3 (offence of
preventing singing of National Anthem) of the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (69
of 1971),] 4 [; or] 4 [(l) the Commission of Sati
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988); or (m) the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); or
(n) the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of
2002),] 5 [shall be disqualified, where the convicted
person is sentenced to (i) only fine, for a period of
six years from the date of such conviction; (ii)
imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and
shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of
six years since his release.]
(2)

A person

convicted

for

the

contravention of
(a) any law providing for the prevention of hoarding or
profiteering; or
(b) any law relating to the adulteration of food or
drugs; or
(c) any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(28 of 1961);
(3) A person convicted of any offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two
years [other than any offence referred to in subsection (1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified
from the date of such conviction and shall continue to
be disqualified for a further period of six years since
his release.]

68

[(4)] Notwithstanding anything 8 [in sub-section (1),


sub-section (2) or sub-section (3)] a disqualification
under either subsection shall not, in the case of a
person who on the date of the conviction is a member
of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect
until three months have elapsed from that date or, if
within that period an appeal or application for revision
is brought in respect of the conviction or the
sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed
of by the court.
(a) "law providing for the prevention of hoarding or
profiteering" means any law, or any order, rule or
notification having the force of law, providing for (i)
the regulation of production or manufacture of any
essential commodity; (ii) the control of price at which
any essential commodity may be bought or sold; (iii)
the regulation of acquisition, possession, storage,
transport, distribution, disposal, use or consumption
of any essential commodity; (iv) the prohibition of the
withholding from sale of any essential commodity
ordinarily kept for sale; (b) "drug" has the meaning
assigned to it in the Durgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
(23 of 1940); (c) "essential commodity" has the
meaning assigned to it in the Essential Commodity
Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); (d) "food" has the meaning
assigned to it in the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 (37 of 1954).
8A. Disqualification on ground of corrupt
practices.
(1) The case of every person found guilty of a corrupt
practice by an order under section 99 shall be
submitted, as soon as may be, after such order takes
effect, by such authority as the Central Government
may specify in this behalf, to the President for
determination of the question as to whether such
person shall be disqualified and if so, for what period:

69

Provided that the period for which any person may be


disqualified under this sub-section shall in no case
exceed six years from the date on which the order
made in relation to him under section 99 takes effect.
(2) Any person who stands disqualified under section
8A of this Act as it stood immediately before the
commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1975 (40 of 1975), may, if the period of such
disqualification has not expired, submit a petition to
the President for the removal of such disqualification
for the unexpired portion of the said period.
(3) Before giving his decision on any question
mentioned in

sub-section (1) or on any petition

submitted under sub section (2), the President shall


obtain the opinion of the Election Commission on
such question or petition and shall act according to
such opinion.]

9.

Disqualification

for

dismissal

for

person

who

corruption or disloyalty. (1) A

having held an office under the Government of India


or under

the Government of any State has been

dismissed for corruption or for

disloyalty

to

the

State shall be disqualified for a period of five years


from the date of such dismissal. (2) For the
purposes of sub-section (1), a certificate

issued

by the Election Commission to the effect that a


person having held office under the Government of
India or under the Government of a State, has or has
not been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to
the State shall be conclusive proof of the fact:
Provided that no certificate to the effect that a person
has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to
the State shall be issued unless an opportunity of
being heard has been given to the said person.

70

9A. Disqualification for Government contracts,


etc. A person shall be disqualified if, and for so
long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him
in the course of his trade or business with the
appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or
for the execution of any works undertaken by, that
Government. Explanation.For the purposes of this
section, where a contract has been fully performed by
the person by whom it has been entered into with the
appropriate Government, the contract shall be
deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that
the Government has not performed its part of the
contract either wholly or in part.

10. Disqualification for office under Government


company.A person shall be disqualified if, and for
so long as, he is a managing agent, manager or
secretary of any company or corporation (other than a
cooperative society) in the capital of which the
appropriate Government has not less than twenty-five
per cent share

10A. Disqualification for failure to lodge


account of election

expenses.If the Election

Commission is satisfied that a person


(a) has failed to lodge an account of election
expenses within the time and in the manner required
by or under this Act; and (b) has no good reason or
justification for the failure, the Election Commission
shall, by order published in the Official Gazette,
declare him to be disqualified and any such person
shall be disqualified for a period of three years from
the date of the order.

71

11.

Removal

or

reduction

of

period

of

disqualification.-The Election Commission may, for


reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification
under this Chapter 1 [(except under section 8A)] or
reduce the period of any such disqualification.

BT.

Although the Article 243G enable States to make

laws prescribing disqualification, it is submitted that


the said disqualifications imposed should not only
have a nexus with the objects of the representative
Government but they must also be ejusdem generis
with the nature of the disqualification prescribed in
the Representation of the Peoples Act.

BU.

It is submitted that far from having a nexus with

the objects sought to be achieved by Schedule IX of the


Constitution and the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act,
1994, the nature of the disqualification prescribed in
the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, is arbitrary
and there is no nexus with the objects sought to be
achieved. It is, therefore, submitted that Section 19 (r)
(s) (t) of the Act of 1994 is void and is being ultra vires
the powers of the State Government under the Act and
is also void as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution
of the India.

72

BV.

It is submitted that every eligible voter is entitled

to contest for Panchayat Elections regardless of


educational qualifications that one possess or do not
possess.

BW.

The constitutional validity of legislation must be

judged not merely for its formal validity but be judged


with reference to the impact it has on the affected
community. In the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI
[(1990) 1 SCC 614 (667) (para 13), Mukherjee, C.J.
made

statement,

viz.,

that In

judging

the

Constitutional validity of the Act, the subsequent


events, namely, how the Act has worked out, have to be
looked into. It can be supported only on the test of
direct and inevitable effect and, therefore, needs to be
explained in some subsequent decision.

BX.

That when the constitutionality of a law is

challenged

on

the

ground

that

it

infringes

fundamental right, what the Court has to consider is


the direct and inevitable effect of such law. The
arbitrary nature of the Ordinance/Amendment or any
law prescribing educational qualifications can only be
judged in the social and political context in which it

73

operates. The present Ordinance has been passed in


the context of large-scale illiteracy prevailing in the
State of Haryana and rest of the country and hence it
inevitably results in denial of equal opportunity to
contest an election.

BY.

That

the

Children's

Right

to

Free

and

Compulsory Education Act (RTE) was introduced only


in the year 2009 to fulfill the mandate of Article 21A of
the Constitution of India. Assuming that the Act is
implemented in its true letter and spirit, the children
born after 2009 who when they reached the age of 5
can

enter

the

School

free

of

cost

in

their

neighborhood. It is only when the children attain the


age of 21 will become qualified to contest the election
since

that

is

the

minimum

age

prescribed

for

contesting the election. Hence, it is in the year 2030


that such children become eligible for contesting an
election. Hence assuming that the Act is enforced at
its optimum level, a qualification of such nature will
only be viable in the year 2029.

Any attempt to

enforce it now in any given scale in the state will


render it arbitrary and hence, void.

BZ.

That while promulgating the ordinance there

was no emergency and in Dr. D.C. Wadhwa vs State

74

of Bihar, as reported in (1987) 1 SCC 378, a


Constitution Bench of this Honble Court held as
follows:

The power to promulgate an ordinance is essentially


a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation
and it cannot be allowed to be perverted to serve
political ends. It is contrary to all democratic norms
that the executive should have the power to make a
law, but in order to meet an emergent situation, this
power is conferred on the Governor and an ordinance
issued by the Governor in exercise of this power
must, therefore, of necessity be limited in point of
time. That is why it is provided that the ordinance
shall cease to operate on the expiration of six weeks
from the date of assembling of the legislature. The
Constitution-makers expected that if the provisions of
the ordinance are to be continued in force, this time
should be sufficient for the legislature to pass the
necessary Act. But if within this time the legislature
does not pass such an Act, the ordinance must come
to an end. The executive cannot continue the
provisions of the ordinance in force without going to
the legislature. The law-making function is entrusted
by the Constitution to the legislature consisting of the
representatives of the people and if the executive
were permitted to continue the provisions of an
ordinance in force by adopting the methodology of
repromulgation without submitting to the voice of the
legislature, it would be nothing short of usurpation by
the executive of the law-making function of the
legislature. The executive cannot by taking resort to
an emergency power exercisable by it only when the
legislature is not in session, take over the law-making
function of the legislature. That would be clearly
subverting the democratic process which lies at the
core of our Constitutional scheme, for then the people

75

would be governed not by the laws made by the


legislature as provided in the Constitution but by laws
made by the executive. The Government cannot
bypass the legislature and without enacting the
provisions of the ordinance into an Act of the
legislature, repromulgate the ordinance as soon as
the legislature is prorogued.
CA.

It is submitted that Article 243(O) does not

operate as bar to a Petition under Article 226


challenging

the

constitutional

validity

of

law

prescribing disqualification for the contesting election.


Article 243(O) reads as under:

243O.

Bar to interference by courts in electoral

matters notwithstanding

anything

in

this

Constitution
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies made or purporting to be made under
article 243K, shall not be called in question in any
court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented to
such authority and in such manner as is provided for
by or under any Law made by the legislature of a
State.
CB.

That the fact that an election petition can be

filed only after polling is over or after a candidate is


declared elected and what is normally called in
question by such petition is the final result, however,
the petitioners here are challenging the Constitutional

76

validity of the impugned amendment which has


violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners and
it is not an Election Petition within the meaning of
Article 243 (O).

CC.

That the power of the High Court and the

Supreme Court to exercise judicial review where the


Constitutional validity of a piece of law is in question
has been time and again laid down in various historic
judgments including L Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 (para 78), where the
Supreme Court has held that, We, therefore, hold that
the power of judicial review over legislative action
vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and in
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an
integral and essential feature of the Constitution,
constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily,
therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme
Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations
can never be ousted or excluded.

CD.

On this basis, it is submitted that the present

Petition is not an Election Petition within the


meaning of Section 243 (O)(b) and hence the petitioner
have the right to approach this Honorable Court for
the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

77

CE.

That otherwise also, the impugned Ordinance is

an action of no-application of mind by the respondentState. Therefore also, the impugned Ordinance is liable
to be quashed and set aside.

CF.

Because although the Article 243G enables the

State to make laws prescribing disqualification, it is


submitted that the said disqualifications imposed
should not only have a nexus with the objects of the
representative Government but they must also be
ejusdem generis with the nature of the disqualification
prescribed in the Representation of the Peoples Act.
Therefore, the impugned Ordinance is liable to be
quashed and set aside.

CG.

Because the impugned Ordinance will prevent

the Petitioners from their right to contest as the


impugned Ordinance creates an artificial class of
persons who are otherwise similarly situated to the
Petitioners and therefore, it is liable to be quashed and
set aside. That the voters have a fundamental right to
vote for candidates of their choice and their right
would

be

denied

by

imposing

unreasonable

disqualifications upon potential candidates.

78

CH.

Because the choice of candidates should be left

to the voters, rather than to the legislature as is


sought to be done, by disqualifying candidates who are
otherwise qualified by making artificial classification
without any nexus with the aims and objects of the
said Act.

CI. Because

the

impugned

amendment

and

disqualifications have a negative impact on SC/ST


communities and specially on women, who have been
denied the opportunity to contest as they do not
possess the required qualifications, depriving them of
representation in a democratic system inspite of being
eligible in all ways.

CJ.

Because the voters have been denied the right to

choose a candidate based on their evaluation of


competence to represent them, thereby denying the
right of the voter to freely express their views and
exercise their rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.

CK.

Because in any event, the validity of a law and

the public policy behind it must be judged not only


from the provisions but by their impact and outcome,
which

in

the

present

case

would

lead

to

the

79

disenfranchisement of a large section of society, more


particularity women.

CL.

Because the impact and outcome of the law

indicates that far from being based on public policy, it


is contrary to the declared policy of the Constitution
and its express provision of affirmative action in favour
of women.

CM.

Because the impugned Ordinance is also liable

to be declared ultra vires as the same is a malafide


action on part of the State Government to deprive the
persons from rural area and by creating artificial class
of people.

CN.

Because the impugned Ordinance is ultra vires

to the Constitution of India as it violates Article 243-F


of the Constitution of India.

CO.

That on the one hand the State Government is

providing reservation for women and other under


privileged classes whereas on the other hand several
persons are being deprived of their right to contest the
Panchayat elections.
CP.That the Petitioners crave leave of this Honble Court to
raise additional grounds at the time of hearing.

80

17.

That the main law points involved in the present writ petition
are:
i. Whether the impugned Ordinance is ultra vires / illegal /

ii.

arbitrary?
Whether the proviso to clause (aa) of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of article
14 interalia of the Constitution of India and as such is
liable

iii.

to

be

struck

down

being

ultra

vires

and

unconstitutional?
Whether the proviso to clause (t) of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of articles
14, 15, 19, 21 interalia of the Constitution of India and as
such is liable to be struck down being ultra vires and

iv.

unconstitutional?
Whether the proviso to clause (u) of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of Articles
14, 15, 19, 21 interalia of the Constitution of India and as
such is liable to be struck down being ultra vires and

v.

unconstitutional?
Whether the proviso to clause (w) and of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of Articles
14, 15, 19, 21 interalia of the Constitution of India and as
such is liable to be struck down being ultra vires and
unconstitutional?

81

vi.

Whether the proviso to clause (v) of Section 175 of the


impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of Articles
14, 15, 19, 21 interalia of the Constitution of India and as
such is liable to be struck down being ultra vires and

vii.

unconstitutional?
Whether the impugned actions of the Respondents is
arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 14 of the

viii.

Constitution of India?
Whether the impugned actions of the Respondents is
arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 21 of the

ix.

Constitution of India?
Whether the respondent

government

is

justified

in

notifying the impugned Ordinance disqualifying a majority


of voters from the panchayat elections, without there being
any data or statistical backing for the same, necessitating

x.

such action?
Whether the

respondent

government

is

justified

in

disqualifying candidates against whom charges have been


framed in a criminal case for an offence punishable with
imprisonment for not less than 10 years, in Panchayati Raj
Institutions when there is no such power for being elected
in Municipal Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the

xi.

States and the Parliament of India?


Whether the respondent government

is

justified

in

disqualifying candidates failed to pay any arears to any


Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, District Central
Cooperative Bank and District

Primary Co-operative

82

Agriculture Rural Development Bank, in Panchayati Raj


Institutions when there is no such power for being elected
in Municipal Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the

xii.

States and the Parliament of India?


Whether the respondent government

is

justified

in

disqualifying candidates who have failed to pay any arears


of electricity bills, in Panchayati Raj Institutions when
there is no such power for being elected in Municipal
Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the States and the

xiii.

Parliament of India?
Whether the respondent

government

is

justified

in

disqualifying candidates who have no not have a functional


toilet at their place of residence, in Panchayati Raj
Institutions when there is no such power for being elected
in Municipal Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the
States and the Parliament of India?

18.

That the Petitioner has not filed any such or similar writ
petition either in this Honble Court or in the Honble

19.

Supreme Court of India.


That the Petitioner has no other remedy of appeal or revision
except to approach this Honble Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

83

PRAYER
It is therefore respectfully prayed that the record of the case
may be summoned and after perusal of the same, this
Honble Court may be pleased to:

a. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold


and declare Ordinance no. 5 of 2015 promulgated by
the Honble Governor, Haryana dated 14.08.2015 as
violative and ultra vires of the Constitution;

b. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold


and declare that Sub-sections (aa) and/or (t) and/or
(u) and/or (v) and/or (w)

of Section 175 of the

Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted


vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of
Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the
Constitution of India;

c. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold


and declare that Sub-section (aa) of Section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted
vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of

84

Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the


Constitution of India;

d. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold


and declare that Sub-sections (t) of Section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted
vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of
Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the
Constitution of India;

e. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold


and declare that Sub-sections (u) of Section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted
vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of
Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the
Constitution of India;
f. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold
and declare that Sub-sections (v) of Section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted
vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of
Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the
Constitution of India;
g. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold
and declare that Sub-sections (w) of Section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted
vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of

85

Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the


Constitution of India;
h.
Issue appropriate writ/writs,

orders,

directions

declaring the Notification dated 14.08.2015, issued by


the State Election Commission as void; and
i. Grant such other relief/s, including the costs of this
writ petition, as are deemed fit and necessary in the
interest of justice.
j. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this
Honble

Court

deems

fit

under

the

facts

and

circumstances of the present case;


k. Dispense with the issuance of advance notices upon
the Respondents
l. Exempt the Petitioner from filing certified and legible
copies of Annexures as the petitioner is not in
immediate

possession

of

certified/legible

copies/fair/unmarked/proper left hand space/double


space copies of Annexures annexed with the instant
petition. However, true typed copies and clear/legible
photocopies of the same are being annexed with the
present petition for the kind consideration of this
Honble Court.

Therefore, filing of certified/legible

copies of Annexures annexed with the instant petition


may kindly be dispensed with and true typed copies
thereof may kindly be taken on record, in the interest
of justice, equity and fair play.
m. Award the cost of the present petition in favour of the
Petitioner.

86

INTERIM PRAYER
Stay the operation of the impugned Ordinance and
orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and any other relevant
orders

in

the

interim

period,

during

the

period

of

adjudication of the present petition, in the interest of


Justice.

87

PETITIONER
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015
(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)
P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
M:9592771330/9855686442
mail@arjunsheoran.com

VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above writ petition from para
1 to and para are true and correct to my knowledge, information
and belief. The averments made in para

and

are based on legal

advice received and believed to be true. No Part of it is false and


nothing material has been concealed therein.
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015

PETITIONER

88

IN

THE

HIGH COURT

OF

PUNJAB

AND

HARYANA

AT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015


Public Interest Litigation
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
Petitioner
Versus
STATE

OF

HARYANA and Others


Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
OF
SH.
RAJENDER
MOHAN
KASHYAP S/O LATE SHIV DUTT, GENERAL
SECRETARY OF PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL
LIBERTIES,
PUNJAB
AND
CHANDIGARH
CHAPTER, RESIDING AT H.NO. 133, SECTOR
22A, CHANDIGARH,
I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That the deponent is Petitioner in the present case and is
fully conversant with the facts of the case and is therefore,
competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That the averments made in the petition are true and correct
to my knowledge, information and belief. No Part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therein.
3. That the deponent is filling the accompanying petition in
public interest and has no personal interest in the same.
Chandigarh
Dated:
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therein.
Chandigarh
Dated:

DEPONENT

89

90

Annexure P- 1

91

ANNEXURE P-2
HARYANA GOVT GAZ (EXTRA), AUG 14, 2015 (SRVN 23, 1937
SAKA)

PART II
HARYANA GOVERNMENT
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 14th August, 2015
No. Leg. 11/2015 :- The following Ordinance of the
Governor of Haryana promulgated under clause (1) of article 213 of
the Constitution of India, on the 14 th August, 2015 and is hereby
published for general information :HARYANA ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 2015
THE

HARYANA

PANCHAYATI

RAJ

(AMENDMENT)

ORDINANCE, 2015
AN
ORDINANCE
Further To Amend The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Promulgated by the Governor of Haryana in the sixty-sixth


Year of the Republic of India.

92

Whereas the legislature of the State of Haryana is not in


session and the governor is satisfied that the circumstances exist
which render it necessary for him to take immediate action ;

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by clause


(1) of article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Haryana hereby promulgates the following Ordinance :-

1. This Ordinance may be called the Haryana Panchayati Raj


(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
2. In section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994:III.

After clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted,


namely:(aa) has not been convicted, but charges have been
framed in a criminal case for an offence, punishable with
imprisonment for not less than ten years, or;

IV.

After clause (s), the following clauses shall be inserted,


namely:(t) Fails to pay any arrears of any kind due to him to
any

Primary

Agriculture

Co-operative

Society

District Central Co-operative bank and District


Primary

Co-operative

Development Bank, or

Agriculture

Rural

93

(u) Fails to pay arrears of electricity bills, or

(v) Has not passed matriculation examination or its


equivalent

examination

from

any

recognized

institution board.
Provided that in case of a woman candidate or a
candidate

belonging

to

Scheduled

Caste,

the

minimum qualification shall be middle pass, or

(w) Fails to submits self declaration to the effect that


he has a functional toilet at his place of residence.

CHANDIGARH
THE 14TH AUGUST, 2015

PROF. KAPTAN SINGH SOLANKI,


GOVERNOR OF HARYANA.

KULDIP JAIN,
Secretary to Government, Haryana.
Law and Legislative Department.

94

TRUE COPY

ADVOCATE

95

ANNEXURE P-3

HARYANA GOVT GAZ (EXTRA) AUG, 14, 2015


(SRVN 23, 1937 SAKA)

HARYANA GOVERNMENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATS DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 14th August, 2015
No, S.O. 143/H.A. 11/1994/S. 211/2015 :- In exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of
section 211 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Haryana Act
11 of 1994), the Governor of Haryana hereby directs that the
general election of Panches, Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats
(except for Gram Panchayat Chhachhrauli, Radur, Sadhura of
district Yamunanagar, Tosham of district Bhiwani, Nissing(Rural) of
district Karnal, Berwali Nandla of district Panchkula, Jakhal
Mandi of district Fatehabad, Hassanpur of district Palwal and
Samalkha of district Kurukshetra) and members of all Panchayat
Samitis and Zila Parishad shall be held and made in the State of
Haryana by 30th September, 2015 as specified by the State Election
Commission.
RAM

NIWAS,

Additional Chief Secretary to Government

96

Haryana,

Development

Department

TRUE COPY

ADVOCATE

and

Panchayats