Right to Vote in Illegal Constructions: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Cantonment Board Elections

The case of Sunil Kumar Kori & Anr. v. Gopal Das Kabra & Ors. is a landmark judgment dealing with the eligibility of individuals residing in illegally constructed buildings within a Cantonment area to vote in Cantonment Board elections. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, addressed the long-debated issue of whether encroachers should be included in electoral rolls. The case has wide-reaching implications for urban governance, electoral rights, and legal interpretations of residence in relation to voting eligibility.

The dispute arose in the Panchamarhi Cantonment Board elections. The respondent, a long-term resident of Panchamarhi and a contestant in the elections, challenged the inclusion of encroachers in the electoral rolls, arguing that it was against Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007. The High Court had ruled in his favor, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The case concerns the legality of electoral rolls in the context of unauthorized settlements. Cantonments are highly regulated zones, and allowing encroachers voting rights could lead to the legitimization of illegal constructions. The appellants, on the other hand, contended that excluding encroachers amounted to an unfair disenfranchisement of people who had lived in the area for years.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The petitioners put forward a strong argument emphasizing the importance of following legal precedents and rules:

• The electoral rolls must be prepared strictly in accordance with Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, which mandates that the names of electors be arranged according to house numbers. Since encroachers do not have legally assigned house numbers, their names should not be included in the electoral rolls.
• Including encroachers would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging further unauthorized settlements.
• The High Court had already ruled in a previous case that encroachers should not be included, and any deviation would amount to contempt of court.
• Allowing encroachers to vote would lead to unfair elections as it gives undue advantage to those who have settled illegally.

Arguments of the Respondents

The respondents presented counterarguments, asserting that exclusion from the voting process was arbitrary and unconstitutional:

• Section 28 of the Cantonment Act grants voting rights to every individual residing in the Cantonment area for at least six months, without specifying the legality of their residence.
• The term ‘resided’ in the Act is broad enough to include all individuals, including those residing in unauthorized constructions.
• Disqualifying encroachers imposes an additional restriction not mentioned in the Cantonment Act.
• The government had already prepared voter lists including encroachers, and their exclusion would lead to confusion and disenfranchisement.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Anil R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao, upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that individuals residing in illegally constructed buildings could not be included in the electoral rolls.

Key Observations

• The Court stated that the Cantonment Act clearly defines who qualifies as a resident, and those living in unauthorized structures do not meet this definition.
• It was noted that electoral rules must be strictly followed to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.
• The Court observed that unauthorized construction is a pressing issue in Cantonments and allowing encroachers voting rights would undermine the rule of law.

Extracts from the Judgment

The Court provided a detailed explanation on the interpretation of residency under the Act:

“It is clear from Section 28 that a person who is not less than 18 years of age and who has resided in a Cantonment area for a period of not less than six months immediately preceding the qualifying date shall be entitled to be enrolled as an elector. However, the word ‘resident’ in the Act covers only those maintaining a house that is legally constructed.”

The Court also addressed the issue of the legality of structures and their impact on voter registration:

“A person should be a resident of a legally constructed house for being entitled to be enrolled as an elector. The term ‘inhabitant’ is broad, but the term ‘resident’ in the Act clearly excludes those living in unauthorized constructions.”

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for election laws and urban governance:

• It establishes that individuals residing in unauthorized constructions cannot claim voting rights in Cantonment Board elections.
• It strengthens the authority of municipal and Cantonment Boards in regulating electoral rolls.
• The judgment acts as a deterrent against encroachments and illegal settlements.
• It ensures that only lawful residents have a say in Cantonment governance, maintaining the integrity of the system.

Comparison with Other Election Laws

The Court also analyzed similar provisions in other election laws, such as the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It found that while the latter has broader definitions of residency, the Cantonment Act is specific in its requirements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that voting rights in Cantonment Board elections must align with legal residency requirements. This ensures that only those living in lawful dwellings are eligible to vote, upholding the integrity of electoral rolls and preventing the legitimization of illegal encroachments.

The judgment is a strong stance against illegal settlements and emphasizes the need for adherence to electoral rules. By disallowing encroachers from voting, the Court has reinforced the principle that unlawful occupation cannot form the basis for electoral rights.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sunil Kumar Kori & A vs Gopal Das Kabra & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-09-2016-1741883842585.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Anil R. Dave
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category