Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned counsel appearing in different writ applications on behalf of the petitioners attacked the validity of amended Section 4 of the Act on ground of it being repugnant to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinatfer referred to as the Representation Act) as well on the ground that it is against the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Foundation of this argument is that the Representation Act as well as the Constitution has prescribed 21 years as the lower limit of the age for the voters of the Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies and they conceive the election on the basis of adult suffrage, i.e., by persons above 21 years of age. For finding out as to whether a provision of the State Act is repugnant to another provision of the Central Act so as to attract Article 254 of the Constitution, it must be established that the State Act as well as the Central Act have been framed under any item of the concurrent list (List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution). Only in such a situation, the State Act to the extent of repugnancy shall be void in absence of the President's assent, as contemplated by Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. In my opinion, the Representation Act and the Act in question cannot be held to be repugnant to each other because they are operating in different fields, one prescribed about the preparation of the electoral rolls for the Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies and the other for a much smaller elective body, the Gram Panchayat. The present Act has been framed not under any item of concurrent list, but under item 5 of State List (List II), which contains the following entry:

8. For the question as to whether the amended Section 4 is against the basic structure of the Constitution, reference was made to Article 326 of the Constitution which provides that election to the House of People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. In that very Article it has been stated that adult suffrage means persons who are not less than 21 years of age on the relevant date. Reference has also been made to Halsbury's Laws of England as to what is meant by full age. According to Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel appearing in one of the writ applications, on behalf of the petitioner, it is also one of the basic features of the Constitution that elections to different posts should be held on the basis of adult suffrage. In this connection, reference was made to the well known case of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagal-varu v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461). It is difficult to hold that the Constitution places any such general bar on the voting right of citizens of India to different elected bodies, other than the House of People had Legislative Assemblies of the States. Article 326 on its own terms applies only to the House of People and Legislative Assembly of every State. A Gram Panchayat is a much smaller body. If persons below 21 years, but above 18 years, have also been permitted to be registered as voters, it cannot be held to be irrational or in conflict with any provision of the Constitution. At the age of 18 a person becomes "major and his acts and omissions have full legal implications. In my considered view, the amended Section 4 of the Act cannot be held to be ultra vires.

31. The validity of amended Section 4 was also challenged on the ground that it destroyed the basic concept of the Constitution. It is said that the source of power for making the law on the subject, is to be found in items 5 of list 2 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, by necessary implication, is "for the purposes of local self-Government". Local Self-Government is a Government by the people elected by adult suffrage and the concept of adult suffrage is itself provided in Article 326 of the Constitution and, therefore, when a provision is made for people below 21 to vote it is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature as provided in Hem 5 of list 2 of the 7th Schedule. The basic concept of the Constitution was stated in the very well known case of His Holiness Keshavananda Bharti (AIR 1973 SC 14-61) where Chief Justice Sikri formulated the basic structure to be the following features: (1) Supremacy of the Constitution, (2) Republican and democratic forms of Government, (3) Secular character of the Constitution, (4) Separation of power between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary and (5) the Federal character of the Constitution. It cannot be said that by widening the franchise by Ordinance 5 of 1978, the legislature has infringed any of these basic features of the Constitution. Article 326 cannot be of any assistance in determining the scope of Section 4 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act inasmuch as provision is made there for those who will be entitled to vote for the appropriate legislatures, namely, the State Legislature and the Union Parliament. If the law making authority has considered it desirable to further broaden the franchise and give voting rights to persons who have attained the age of 18 for elections at the village level, no exception can be taken to it. Reliance placed for the definition of infant as found under the laws of England is misplaced inasmuch as the extent of franchise is a matter for the competent law making authority to decide. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that amended Section 4 is ultra vires of item 5 of list 2 of the 2nd Schedule read with Article 246 (2) of the Constitution as it offends the basic structure of the Constitution.