Skip to main content

Right to Contest Elections

 Right to Contest Elections


Does Article 19 contain a right to contest elections?

Various judgements have been passed by the courts of India stating that the right to contest elections is not a fundamental right but a statutory right. In Sakhawat Ali v. Orissa, the Supreme Court held that disqualifying an individual from contesting an election does not violate his fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(g). In Jumuna Prasad v. Lachhi Ram as well, Supreme Court held that the right to contest elections is not common law or fundamental right but a statutory right subjected to certain conditions. Thus, it can be concluded that the right to contest elections does not come under the ambit of Article 19. 


The importance of right to contest elections in a democracy and the limitations that can be imposed upon the same.

Elections are cardinal for the existence of democracy. It gives an opportunity to people to assert their voice and choose a person to represent their interests. And at the same time, it allows people to show their dissatisfaction towards a particular candidate or party. For a long time, there has been debate as to whether educational qualification should be a limitation imposed on the candidates standing for election. However, it is a slippery slope as it would be difficult to determine to what extent should the qualification be in order to be eligible and the implementation of the same would be next to impossible. At present, voters of the nation have the right to acquire information pertaining to whom they are voting for and how that particular candidate is gaining funds for the same. But political parties are not obliged to provide any such information to voters as they are outside the purview of the RTI Act. Therefore, in order to make the process of election transparent, political parties need to be brought under the ambit of Section 2(h) of Right To Information Act, 2005. The government of India has also imposed certain limitations such as the minimum age for the lower house being 25 years and for the upper house 30 years, a candidate cannot stand for election if there exists any criminal record or even any criminal allegation against the same. Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 also prescribes a maximum limit on the expenditure of candidates.

 

Does the right comes in conflict with the principles of fairness ?

The right to contest election does not come in conflict with the principle of fairness as in order to protect the interest of the people certain restrictions have to be imposed. These said restrictions are embodiment of the rights of the others. Therefore, it is necessary that not everybody is treated as equal, and reasonable restrictions are imposed. If people had the right to elect any one from their choices regardless of the qualifications, certain important criteria such as age, no criminal record, etc might be ignored. This ignorance of the people would be detrimental to the society as a whole.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more