Is right to vote a fundamental right? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the right to vote is not a fundamental right but a statutory right that exists only where provided by law..On April 10, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan emphasised that the right to vote and the right to contest elections are distinct rights and are governed by statutory provisions (provisions laid down by law) rather than Constitutional guarantees.It held that these rights are not absolute but are subject to conditions prescribed by law.“It is well settled that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right… these rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to the extent conferred by statute,” the Court observed..The observations came in a case where certain bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan prescribed eligibility conditions for candidates seeking to contest elections to their management committees.These bye-laws were earlier struck down by the Rajasthan High Court, which held them to be inconsistent with the governing statute.However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court ought not to have entertained the challenge in writ proceedings, particularly when a statutory dispute resolution mechanism was available under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act..On merits, the Court held that the High Court had erred in treating the eligibility conditions as disqualifications and in striking them down.The Court explained that the bye-laws under challenge merely prescribed eligibility criteria linked to participation and performance of member societies and did not restrict the right to vote.It further clarified that while members may have a statutory right to vote, the right to contest elections stands on a different footing and can be regulated through eligibility conditions..It also opined that prescribing qualifications or eligibility criteria for contesting elections does not violate any constitutional principle as long as such conditions remain consistent with the governing statute..Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and upheld the validity of the bye-laws..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal along with advocates Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Amit, Vani Vyas and Prakhar Singh.The State and other respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, along with advocates Arushi Rathore, Nidhi Jaswal and Namit Saxena..[Read Judgement]