Rajbala & Others vs State of Haryana & Others

16 Oct 2025 Landmark Judgements 16 Oct 2025

Case Summary: Rajbala & Others vs State of Haryana & Others

Citation: (2015) 12 SC CK 0010 | (2016) 2 SCC 445

Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 671 of 2015

Date of Decision: 10 December 2015

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Final Decision: Petition Dismissed

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=997106

Law Points Raised:

  • Article 14 of the Constitution – Right to equality and challenge on arbitrariness of electoral disqualifications.
  • Article 21 – Whether disqualifications under the Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act violate the right to livelihood.
  • Article 243 of the Constitution (Part IX) – Constitutional provisions on Panchayati Raj Institutions.
  • Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Haryana) – Section 11 – Grounds for disqualification from contesting panchayat elections.
  • Interpretation of Article 40 – State’s duty to constitute village panchayats.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • The Constitution guarantees the right to contest elections to legislative bodies only within the parameters laid down by the law.
  • Panchayat elections are not a fundamental right but a statutory right, hence reasonable restrictions can be imposed.
  • The State legislature is competent to impose qualifications and disqualifications for contesting local body elections.
  • Literacy and other qualifications (e.g., functioning toilets, debt-free status) prescribed under the impugned Act do not violate Articles 14 or 21.

Final Ruling:

  • The Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 was upheld as constitutionally valid.
  • Disqualifications imposed (like minimum educational qualifications, payment of dues, and toilet construction) were not arbitrary or discriminatory.
  • Petition was dismissed.

Relevant Paragraph Highlights:

  • Para 1–3: Background of Panchayati Raj Institutions and evolution via Article 40 and 73rd Amendment.
  • Para 4–6: Legal framework of Part IX of the Constitution regarding the structure, duration, and powers of Panchayats.
  • Later paragraphs (not included here): Deal with specific challenges to the disqualification clauses.

Conclusion:

This judgment is a key precedent for electoral reforms and rural governance. The Supreme Court held that State-imposed qualifications for panchayat candidates (like minimum education and sanitation criteria) are reasonable and in line with constitutional provisions. It clarified that right to contest elections is not a fundamental right, reinforcing legislative authority to prescribe conditions for local body governance.

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=997106

Article Details
  • Published: 16 Oct 2025
  • Updated: 16 Oct 2025
  • Category: Landmark Judgements
Subscribe for updates

Get curated case law updates and product releases straight to your inbox.

Join Newsletter