DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY

2016
SYNOPSIS
ON
RAJBALA & ORS. vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 671/2015

SUBMITTED BY:

SUBMITTED TO:

ALOK KUMAR SINGH

DR. ATUL KUMAR TIWARI

ROLL NO: 22

FACULTY OF LAW

SECTION ‘A’
B.A. LLB (hons), SEMESTER IV

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

22 . Atul Kumar Tiwari. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY who helped me in getting all the materials necessary for the project.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am obliged to our Associate Professor Dr. who has given me golden chance for this research project. ALOK KUMAR SINGH ROLL NO. I would also like to thank the almighty and my parents for their moral support and my friends who are always there to extend the helping hand whenever required. I further extend my thanks to library staff of DR.

Salem      AIR 1952 SC 64 PUCL v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 R. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others. (1995) 1 SCC 732. ‘Samiti’ and District level is established under THE ACT with bodies known as Gram Panchayat. (2014) 8 SCC 682. a three tier Panchayat system at the Village. (1983) 1 SCC 305 Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) & Another v. (1992) 4 SCC 80. Bar Council of India.Ponnuswami v Returning Officer. (2003) 8 SCC 369 Javed vs. State of Kerala & Another. Union of India & Another. INTRODUCTION: The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act. (2000) 8 SCC 46 State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Sivakumar & Others.S. Union of India.S. State of Madras. Prabhakar Rao & Others v. Director.) & Others v. (1996) 3 SCC 709 Subramanian Swamy v. As required under Article 243B4. Krishna & Others v. N. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369 Jyoti Basu v Debi Ghosal (1982) 1 SCC 691 K. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another. (1975) Supp SCC 1 Javed & Others v. State of Haryana & Others. (2010) 7 SCC 202 Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. AIR 1957 SC 297 B. District Magistrate. Election Commission           of India. Raj Narain. Union of India. Garg v. 1994 was enacted to bring the then existing law governing PANCHAYATS in the State in tune with the Constitution as amended by the 73rd amendment. (1981) 4 SCC 675 Shyamdeo Prasad Singh v.K. Namakkal. Rai Bareilly & Others. Nawal Kishore Yadav. 1985 Supp SCC 432 D. Part V Chapter XX of THE ACT deals with . Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. (1973) 4 SCC 225 Krishnamoorthy v.CASES REFFERED:     A. McDowell & Co. Namakkal Constituency. (2015) 3 SCC 467 Mohan Lal Tripathi v. Nakara & Others v.P. Krishna Murthy (Dr.. (2012) 7 SCC 340 Indian Council of Legal Aid v.

2015 passed by the Haryana State Government. which mandates that a minimum educational qualification is required for contesting the panchayat elections. During the discussion about minimum qualification of person who can contest election and who can give vote in constitutional assembly it was Ambedkar who laid to rest the argument of illiteracy by saying – “My feeling is that every man is intelligent enough to understand exactly what he wants. (iv) persons who do not possess the specified educational qualification and lastly (v) persons not having a functional toilet at their place of residence. .provisions relating to elections to the PANCHAYATS. after having been elected. These categories are: (i) persons against whom charges are framed in criminal cases for offences punishable with imprisonment for not less than ten years. can be seen as one of the most unworthy gift one can give a state which literacy percentage low comparable to other state like Kerala because of this minimum qualification 36 lakh people are not able to participate in democratic election i. a man may be illiterate. if any. owed by them to either a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society or District Central Cooperative Bank or District Primary Agricultural Rural Development Bank. Section 175 mandates that persons suffering from any one of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 175 are neither eligible to contest the election to any one of the offices under the Act nor can they continue in office if they incur any one of the disqualifications. (iii) persons who have arrears of electricity bills.e. By the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) ACT. they are not able to fulfil the minimum requisite for contesting election. none the less he may be very intelligent. 2015. but would now be disabled to contest as none of them possess the requisite educational qualification.” OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: To know about on what basis Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) ACT. five more categories of persons are rendered incapable of contesting elections for any one of the elected offices under THE ACT. Literacy has not much bearing on this point. upholding the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) ACT. 2015. (ii) persons who fail to pay arrears. The three petitioners herein claim to be political activists interested in contesting the local body elections. HYPOTHESIS: This judgement given by the Supreme Court. Writ petition dismissed by the honourable judges.

Whether it is not discriminatory that on the ground in which one can disqualify to become panch of the PANCHAYAT would not be disqualified for contesting the legislative assembly and parliament election. magazines articles and law journals to form opinions.com/40117/supreme-court-verdict-haryana-panchayatelections-education-ambedkar/ . TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION:             APPEAL NO CASE NAME BENCH MAJORITY/DISSENTING FACT ISSUES THE LAW ON POINT JUDGEMENT RATIO OF THE CASE CASE COMMENT CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY WEB SOURCE: http://www. CITATION FORMAT: Bluebook 19th edition uniform citation. My research I solely based upon secondary means in which I have taken help of books.thebetterindia. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: The methodology adopted by me is that of literature review wherein I have referenced some past researches and have taken help of already done and existent data to draw conclusions.