Supreme Court Rules on Maintainability of Writ Petition in Zilla Panchayat Election Dispute

The case of Smt. Bharati Reddy v. The State of Karnataka & Others dealt with the challenge to the election of the Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary. The Supreme Court examined whether a writ petition challenging the election was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the bar on judicial interference in electoral matters under Article 243-O.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Smt. Bharati Reddy, was elected as a member of the Zilla Panchayat from the 13-Badanahatti Constituency in Bellary, which was reserved for the General (Women) category. Subsequently, on April 15, 2016, the State Government reserved the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary, for Backward Class-B (Woman). The appellant contested for the post and was declared elected.

A group of voters from Bellary district (respondents 6 to 9) filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, challenging her election on the ground that she did not belong to Backward Class-B and had obtained her election through a false caste certificate.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether a writ petition challenging the election of a Zilla Panchayat Adhyaksha is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• Whether Article 243-O of the Constitution bars judicial intervention in electoral matters except through an election petition.
• Whether non-members of the Zilla Panchayat have the right to challenge the election of the Adhyaksha.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Smt. Bharati Reddy)

The appellant contended that:

• The writ petition was not maintainable as it was barred by Article 243-O of the Constitution.
• The only remedy available to the aggrieved party was to file an election petition before the jurisdictional District Judge.
• The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 1994, provide that only a member of the Zilla Panchayat can challenge the election by filing an election petition.
• Since the respondents were merely voters and not members of the Zilla Panchayat, they lacked the locus standi to challenge the election.

Respondents’ Arguments (Voters from Bellary)

The respondents argued that:

• They were voters in the Zilla Panchayat election and had a right to challenge the election of the Adhyaksha.
• Since they were not members of the Zilla Panchayat, they were ineligible to file an election petition. If their writ petition was not entertained, they would be left without any remedy.
• Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted, as held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices J. Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer, ruled that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution which can neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.”

The Court held that:

• Article 243-O(b) does not bar all forms of judicial intervention. While election petitions remain the primary remedy, judicial review under Article 226 is available in exceptional cases.
• Since the respondents could not file an election petition under the Panchayat Raj Rules, denying them the right to file a writ petition would leave them remediless.
• Judicial review is a basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be completely excluded, as held in previous landmark cases.

Key Legal Observations

• The power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an integral part of the basic structure.
• While election disputes should generally be resolved through election petitions, extraordinary circumstances justify judicial review.
• A voter, even if not a member of the Zilla Panchayat, cannot be denied the right to challenge an election through a writ petition.

Final Order

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and directed the High Court’s learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. However, the Court allowed the appellant to continue as Adhyaksha until the High Court’s final decision.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial review cannot be entirely excluded, even in electoral matters. It clarifies that voters have the right to challenge elections under Article 226 when they have no other legal recourse, ensuring that democratic processes remain transparent and accountable.

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

Download Judgment: Smt. Bharati Reddy vs The State of Karnata Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 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