PUCL PIL Challenging Haryana Panchayati Raj Ordinance 2015

1
IN
THE
HIGH COURT
AT
OF
PUNJAB
AND
HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015
Public Interest Litigation
IN THE MATTER OF:

PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
VERSUS
STATE
OF
HARYANA & ORS

INDEX
SR. NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATED
PAGE
COURT
NO.
1.
LIST OF DATES AND
25/08/2015
FEE
-
2.
EVENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
25/08/2015
50.00
3.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION
25/08/2015
4.
AFFIDAVIT
25/08/2015
5.
ANNEXURES
23/08/2015
P-1: Resolution
13/08/2015
P-2: Ordinance
13/08/2015
P-3: Notification
P-4:
Order
in
CWP
21/08/2015
17452 of 2015
6.
P-5: SECC Report

POWER OF ATTORNEY
TOTAL
COURT
FEE
25/08/2015
NOTE:-
1. The main law points involved in this writ petition are at page
no.
Para no. 17 of the paper book.
2. Relevant Statutes/Rules:
a. Constitution of India;
b. Haryana Panchayti Raj Act, 1994
c. Haryana Panchayti Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
3. Any caveat received: No
4. Nature of Civil Writ Petition: Public Interest Litigation
Chandigarh
Dated: 25/08/2015
(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)

P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
M:9592771330/9855686442
mail@arjunsheoran.com
IN
THE
HIGH COURT
OF
PUNJAB
AND
HARYANA
AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
STATE
OF
HARYANA & ORS
FEE MEMO
TOTAL COURT FEE
Chandigarh
Dated: 25/08/2015

P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
M:9592771330/9855686442
LIST
14.08.2015
OF
DATES
AND
EVENTS:
Ordinance no. 5 of 2015 titled Haryana

Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
promulgated
25.08.2015
by
the
Honble
Governor
of
Haryana dated 14.08.2015

Hence this writ petition
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015

P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
M:9592771330/9855686442
IN
THE
HIGH COURT
OF
PUNJAB
AND
HARYANA
AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2014

MEMO
OF
PARTIES
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, Punjab and Chandigarh

Chapter, through its General Secretary Sh. Rajender Mohan
Kashyap s/o Late Shiv Dutt, residing at H.No. 133, Sector 22A,
Chandigarh
Petitioner
Versus
1. STATE
OF
HARYANA, Civil Secretariat Haryana, Sector 1,
Chandigarh, Law and Legislative Department, Government of

Haryana, Secretariat, Government of Haryana through its
Principal Secretary
2. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATS, Government of
Haryana Through the Principal Secretary, New Haryana Civil
Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandigarh
3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Through the Commissioner
and Secretary, Nirvachan Sadan, Plot No. 2, Sector 17,
Panchkula, Haryana
Respondents
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015
P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
M:9592771330/9855686442
CIVIL WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER

ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SEEKING ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS, DIRECTIONS
ORDINANCE
PANCHAYATI
NO.
TO HOLD
OF
2015
AND
DECLARE
TITLED
HARYANA
RAJ (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2015
PROMULGATED BY THE HONBLE GOVERNOR OF

HARYANA DATED
14.08.2015 AS VIOLATIVE AND
ULTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO HOLD AND

DECLARE THAT SUB-SECTIONS (AA), (T), (U), (V) AND
(W) TO SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA PANCHAYATI
ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED VIDE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI RAJ (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2015,
AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21, 40
AND DEHORS PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA; AND TO DECLARE THE STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION'S NOTIFICATION FOR THE ELECTIONS
DATED 14-08-2015 AS VOID.
AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE ORDINANCE

NO.
OF 2015 PROMULGATED BY THE HONBLE
GOVERNOR,
HARYANA
VIOLATIVE
AND
DATED
ULTRA
14.08.2015
VIRES
OF
AS
THE
CONSTITUTION;
AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUB-
SECTIONS (AA) AND/OR (T) AND/OR (U) AND/OR (V)

AND/OR (W)
OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED

VIDE
ORDINANCE
NO.
OF
2015,
AS
BEING
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTION (AA) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
VIDE
ORDINANCE
NO.
OF
2015,
AS
BEING

AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (T) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
VIDE
ORDINANCE
NO.
OF
2015,
AS
BEING

AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (U) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA

VIDE
ORDINANCE
NO.
OF
2015,
AS
BEING

AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (V) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
VIDE
ORDINANCE
NO.
OF
2015,
AS
BEING

AND
ISSUE
APPROPRIATE
WRIT/WRITS,
ORDERS,
DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUBSECTIONS (W) OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA
VIDE
ORDINANCE
NO.
OF
2015,
AS
BEING

AND
STAY
THE
OPERATION
OF
THE
IMPUGNED
ORDINANCE (ANNEXURES P-2) AND NOTIFICATION

(ANNEXURE P-3) IN THE INTERIM PERIOD, DURING
THE PERIOD OF ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
AND
ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION

WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE;
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.
That the petitioner is an organization agitating and fighting

for human rights and civil liberties in India. The petitioner
has taken up cudgels on behalf of the oppressed and weaker
sections in defence of their rights in the Honble Supreme
Court of India as well as various Honble High Courts across
the country. Therefore, the petitioner has locus standi to file
the present writ petition and is thus competent to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Honble Court.
2.
That the present petitioner is a unit of Indias largest

voluntary human rights organization and has been working
on the issues of civil liberties, human rights and other issues
relating to people friendly governance and administration
inter alia since several decades. It does not take any funds
from
governmental
agencies,
funding
agencies,
foreign
governments, corporations and is completely run on small

donations/membership fee collected from its individual
members.
3.
The PUCL was formed in 1976 by Sh. Jayaprakash Narayan.

Some of the countrys well known freedom fighters like
Acharya Kripalani, Krishan Kant were amongst the founding
members of the PUCL. Amongst the eminent persons who
have led the PUCL are Justice Tarkunde, Justice Rajinder
Sachar,
Prof.
Rajni
Kothari,
well
known
jurist
KG
Kannabiran, Arun Shourie and numerous others. The

present National President is Prof. Prabhakar Sinha and
State President is Sh. RL Batta, Senior Advocate.
4.
That PUCL India has initiated several legal interventions in

human rights and civil liberties issues, and filed several
Public Interest Litigation Petitions in the Honble Supreme
Court of India and Honble High Courts across India for the
enforcement of citizen rights and civil liberties. This has led
to several notable and path breaking decisions of the Honble
Courts, which include the famous NOTA (None of the Above)
button case [2013(10) SCC 1] and the Right to Food case
[W.P. No. 196 of 2001, 2013(2) SCC 663] currently under
adjudication before the Honble Supreme Court. Instances of
reported judgments of the same would include the matter
reported as AIR 1997 SC 568, (PUCL v. Union of India)
wherein the PUCL had challenged the telephone tapping by
the police in the Honble Supreme Court on the ground that
the citizen had a right to privacy which was a part of Right to
life as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In another
matter, reported as AIR 1997 SC 1203, the PUCL filed a
matter for compensation in a case of a fake encounter.
Thereafter,
vide
CWP
No.
1827
of
2004,
the
PUCL
approached the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

for the constitution of a State Human Rights Commission for
the State of Haryana under the Protection of Human Rights

Act, 1993. The present petitioner had challenged the
constitutionality of the amendments made to the Haryana
Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, in
CWP No. 15333 of 2013 titled Peoples Union of Civil
Liberties versus State of Haryana, after which the State
Of Haryana had amended the relevant provisions of Haryana
Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
5.
That the petitioner is acting in a bona fide manner, entirely

for public interest of the people of Punjab and Haryana. The
petitioner
has
authorized
its
General
Secretary,
Shri
Rajender Mohan Kashyap through a resolution passed by

the Executive Committee dated 23/08/2015. A copy of the
said resolution is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P 1.
6.
It is during its work as a human rights and civil liberties

organization in Punjab and Haryana that it was realised that
respondent No. 1 has made certain amendments to the
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act through the
in a wrongful,
illegal and arbitrary fashion affecting the rights of the

citizens of Haryana.
7.
That the Present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is being filed by the Petitioners above
named, seeking issuance of appropriate writ/writs, orders,
directions to hold and declare Ordinance No. 5 of 2015 titled
10
Haryana
Panchayati
Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
promulgated by the Honble Governor of Haryana dated

14.08.2015 as violative and ultra vires of the Constitution, to
hold and declare that sub-sections (v) to section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted vide
Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, as
being violative of articles 14, 19, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of
the Constitution of India; and to declare the State Election
Commission's Notification for the elections dated 14-08-2015
as void.
8.
The
present
Writ
Petition
under
Article
226
of
the
constitution of India is being filed by the Petitioner

Organisation on behalf of countless residents of the State of
Haryana, who are poor, underprivileged and belong to
weaker sections of the
society,
i.e.
Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribe, Minorities and OBC, and are permanent

residents
of
State
of
Haryana.
That
the
Petitioner
Organisation represents countless citizens of India and

residents of Haryana who symbolize a large section of people
who are competent to handle panchayat work and are
committed to the cause of upliftment and development of the
people. The petitioner organisation have approached this
Honble Court to protect the interests of public at large, who
would be denied of their right and opportunity to contest
11
elections and participate in the democratic process of local

self-governance.
9.
That section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994

reads as follows:
175. Disqualifications. - (1) No person shall be a Sarpanch, [-] or
a Panch of a Gram Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti
or Zila Parishad or continue as such who (a) has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act,
been convicted(i) of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Act
22 of 1955), unless a period of five years, or such lesser period as
the Government may allow in any particular case, has elapsed
since his conviction; or
(ii) of any other offence and been sentenced to imprisonment for
not less than six months, unless a period of five years, or such
lesser period as the Government may allow in any particular case,
has elapsed since his release; or
(b) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound
mind; or
(c) has been adjudicated an insolvent and has not obtained his
discharge; or
(d) has been removed from any office held by him in a Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad under any provision
of this Act or in a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad before the commencement of this Act under the Punjab
Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and Punjab Panchayat Samiti Act,
1961, and a period of five years has not elapsed from the date of
such removal, unless he has, by an order of the Government
notified
in
the
Official
Gazette
been
relieved
from
the
disqualifications arising on account of such removal from office; or

(e) has been disqualified from holding office under any provision
of this Act and the period for which he was so disqualified has not
elapsed; or
(f) holds any salaried office or office of profit in any Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad;
(g) has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner any share or
interest in any work done by order of the Gram Panchayat,
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad;
12
(h) has directly or indirectly, by himself or, his partner share or

interest in any transaction of money advanced or borrowed from
any officer or servant of any Gram Panchayat; or
(i) fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him to the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or any Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad subordinate thereto
or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with the Chapters
and Provisions of this Act, within three months after a special
notice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf has been
served upon him;
(j) is servant of Government or a servant of any Local Authority; or
(k) has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a Foreign State or is
under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a
Foreign State ; or
(l) is disqualified under any other provision of this Act and the
period for which he was so disqualified has not elapsed ; or
(m) is a tenant or lessee holding a lease under the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or is in arrears of
rent of any lease or tenancy held under the Gram Panchayat,
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad ; or
(n) is or has been during the period of one year preceding the
date of election, in unauthorised possession of land or other
immovable property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat
Samiti or Zila Parishad ; or
[(o) being a Sarpanch, or Panch or a member of Panchayat Samiti
or a Zila Parishad has cash in hand in excess of that permitted
under the rules and does not deposit the same along with interest
at the rate of twenty-one per centum in pursuance of a general or
special order of the prescribed authority within the time specified
by it ; or]
(p) being a Sarpanch, [-] or Panch or a Chairman, Vice- Chairman
or Member, President or Vice-President or Member of Panchayat
Samiti or Zila Parishad has in his custody prescribed records and
registers and other property belonging to, or vested in, Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad and does not hand
over the same in pursuance of general or special order of the
prescribed authority within the time specified in the order.
(q) has more than two living children ;
Provided that a person having more than two children on or upto
the expiry of one year of the commencement of this Act, shall not
be deemed to be disqualified.
13
[(r) admits the claim against Gram Panchayat without proper

authorisation in this regar :
Provided that such disqualification shall be for a period of six
years; and
Explanation 1 - A person shall not be disqualified under clause (g)
for membership of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad by reason only of such person, (a) having share in any joint stock company or a share or interest
in any society registered under any law for the time being in force
which shall contract with or be employed by or on behalf of Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad ; or
(b) having a share or interest in any newspaper in which any
advertisement relating to the affairs of a Gram Panchayat,
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad may be inserted ; or
(c) holding a debenture or being otherwise concerned in any loan
raised by or on behalf of any Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti
or Zila Parishad; or
(d) being professionally engaged on behalf of any Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad as a Legal
Practitioner ; or
(e) having any share or interest in any lease of immovable
property in which the amount of rent has been approved by the
Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad in its own
case or in any sale or purchase of immovable property or in any
agreement for such lease, sale or purchase ; or
(f) having a share or interest in the occasional sale to the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad of any article in
which he regularly trades or in the purchase from the Gram
Panchayat of any article, to a value in either case not exceeding in
any year one thousand rupees.
Explanation 2. - For the purpose of clause (1) (i) a person shall not be deemed to be disqualified if he has paid
the arrears or the sum referred to in clause (i) of this sub-section,
prior to the day prescribed for the nomination of candidates ;
10.
That the Respondent No. 1 vide Ordinance No.
5 of 2015
promulgated
prescribed
on
14.08.2015
has
interalia
mandatory educational qualification for eligibility to hold
14
elected posts of PRIs established under the Haryana Act. The

Impugned
Ordinance
lays
educational
and
other
qualifications for being elected as members of PRIs. The

impugned provision reads as follows:
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(1) of article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Haryana hereby promulgates the following Ordinance :-
This Ordinance may be called the Haryana Panchayati Raj

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
In section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994:I.
After clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted,

namely:(aa) has not been convicted, but charges have been framed in a
criminal case for an offence, punishable with imprisonment for
not less than ten years, or;
II.
After clause (s), the following clauses shall be inserted,

namely:(t) Fails to pay any arrears of any kind due to him to any
Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society District
Central Co-operative bank and District Primary Cooperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank, or
(u) Fails to pay arrears of electricity bills, or
(v) Has not passed matriculation examination or its

equivalent
examination
from
any
recognized
institution board.
Provided that in case of a woman candidate or a
candidate
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste,
minimum qualification shall be middle pass, or
the
15
(w) Fails to submits self declaration to the effect that he

has a functional toilet at his place of residence.
11.
It is submitted that the requirements as emphasised in the

impugned Ordinance herein are irrational, arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 40 and Part IX of the
Constitution of India.
A true typed copy of the Ordinance No. 5
Extraordinary Gazette Notification dated
published in
14.08.2015 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P 2

12.
That members of the civil society and political parties have

vehemently opposed the proposal due to the prejudice
caused to women, SCs and other underprivileged persons
and thereby hindering inclusive participation for rural
13.
development.
That in spite of calls for a rethink, the Respondent State has
failed to take into consideration that this ordinance would
deny the opportunity of the majority of the rural populations
to contest elections, including denying a large number of
sitting
14.
elected
representatives,
from
contesting
the
forthcoming election 2015.

It is submitted that bringing in this ordinance is against the
inclusive spirit of the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the
Constitution and that the Government had brought these
changes without holding any debate on it in the public
domain or discussing it in the State Assembly which was
16
against democracy. That the Impugned Ordinance was

hurriedly promulgated knowing fully well that elections to
15.
PRIs in the State are round the corner.

That despite protests and meetings of Government officials
with representatives of Panch, Sarpanch and civil society,
the process of elections has been initiated and the State
Election Commission has notified that Panchayati Raj
Institutions Elections will be completed before 30/09/2015.
A True copy of the notification dated 14.08.2015 issued by
the State Election Commission is annexed hereto and
16.
marked as ANNEXURE P 3
That this Honble High Court in the matter of CWP No.
17452 of 2015 titled Ved Wanti Vs. State of Haryana and
another, which is regarding a challenge to clause (v) of
Section 175 of the Act, as inserted by the impugned
Ordinance, was pleased to issue notice of motion to the
respondent state and was further pleased to stay the
operation of clause (v) of Section 175 of the Act to the next
date of hearing which is on 28/08/2015. However the
challenge in that petition is not to the other clauses of
Section 175 of the Act, which is sought to be inserted by the
impugned Ordinance.
A True copy of the order in CWP No. 17452 of 2015 titled Ved
Wanti Vs. State of Haryana and another dated 21.08.2015 is
annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE P 4
17
GROUNDS
A. Because the issuance of the impugned ordinance is

malafide, in so far that there was no emergency and
was issued only to bypass democratic scrutiny by the
legislative assembly of the State and to avoid debate,
which is also envisaged under Article 243 F of the
Constitution. That the State Assembly also could have
called for a special session of the Assembly, as it was
done, to ratify the Judicial Appoints Bill.
B. Because the ordinance is ultra vires the powers of the
Governor, there being no emergency, in that avoiding
the presentation and passage of the bill in the State
Assembly is intended only to defeat the constitutional
processes since there was no urgency to introduce a
vital disqualification through an ordinance which
could have awaited a duly enacted law.
C. Because the respondent government is not justified in

notifying the impugned Ordinance disqualifying a
majority of voters from the panchayat elections,
without there being any data or statistical backing for
the same, necessitating such action.
18
D. Because the respondent government is not justified in

disqualifying candidates against whom charges have
been framed in a criminal case for an offence
punishable with imprisonment for not less than 10
years, in Panchayati Raj Institutions when there is no
such power for being elected in Municipal Institutions,
Legislative Assemblies of the States and the Parliament
of India.
E. Because the respondent government is not justified in

disqualifying candidates failed to pay any arears to any
Primary
Agriculture
Cooperative
Society,
District
Central Cooperative Bank and District Primary Cooperative Agriculture Rural Development Bank, in
Panchayati Raj Institutions when there is no such
power for being elected in Municipal Institutions,
of India.
F. Because the respondent government is not justified in

disqualifying candidates who have failed to pay any
arears of electricity bills, in Panchayati Raj Institutions
when there is no such power for being elected in
Municipal Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the
States and the Parliament of India.
19
G. Because the respondent government is not justified in

disqualifying candidates who have no not have a
functional
toilet
at
their
place
of
residence,
in
Panchayati Raj Institutions when there is no such

power for being elected in Municipal Institutions,
of India.
H. Because clause (aa) of Section 175 of the Act, as

inserted
by
the
impugned
Ordinance
is
unfair,
arbitrary and illegal because it has no rational Nexus

with the object of the Act. Furthermore, merely
because charges have been framed in a criminal case
against a person, does not mean the said person is
guilty
of
the
said
crimes/criminal
actions,
and
therefore disqualifying a person from holding an office

in the Panchayati Raj institutions, without a conviction
by a court of law would be arbitrary, unconstitutional
and illegal.
I. Because clause (t) of Section 175 of the Act, as

inserted
by
the
impugned
Ordinance
is
unfair,
arbitrary and illegal as mere failure to pay any arrears

to
any
Primary
Agriculture
Cooperative
Society,
District Central Cooperative Bank and District Primary

Co-operative Agriculture Rural Development Bank,
20
cannot and should not be a disqualification for holding

an office in the Panchayati Raj institutions, as the
same would be arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.
J. Because clause (u) of Section 175 of the Act, as

inserted
by
the
impugned
Ordinance
is
unfair,
arbitrary and illegal as mere failure to pay any arrears

of electricity bills, cannot and should not be a
disqualification for holding an office in the Panchayati
Raj institutions, as the same would be arbitrary,
unconstitutional and illegal.
K. Because clause (w) of Section 175 of the Act, as

inserted
by
the
impugned
Ordinance
is
unfair,
arbitrary and illegal as merely because a candidate

does not have a functional toilet at his place of
residence, cannot and should not be a disqualification
for holding an office in the Panchayati Raj institutions,
as the same would be arbitrary, unconstitutional and
illegal, given the social economic conditions in the
State and India, wherein several persons are unable to
maintain toilet facilities at their place of residence due
to social economic reasons, including poverty and
deprivation
elections
and
barring
because
unconstitutional.
of
them
the
from
same
contesting
would
be
21
L. Because the impugned Ordinance disqualifies persons

from contesting and holding office in Panchayati Raj
institutions, thereby further increasing their exclusion
and deprivation.
M. Because,
the
very
these representative institutions
purpose
is
to
give
of
equal
opportunity to all including those who do not have

formal education in schools to be in power in local
governance and a whole segment of people are being
denied representation vide the impugned ordinance.
N. Because the Impugned Ordinance is violative of the
core
constitutional
philosophy
of
democratic
governance in India. That democratic governance and

equality of status and opportunity featuring in the
preamble to the constitution are part of the basic
structure of the constitution.
O. Because the Impugned ordinance is violative of
Articles 14, 15, 19, 40 and Part IX of the Constitution.
P. Because the Impugned Ordinance is violative of Article
19 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
right to contest election is a fundamental right and is
in exercise of the right to freedom of speech and
expression as guaranteed under Article 19 ( 1) ( a) of
the Constitution. That right to contest election is a
core condition of exercise of democracy which is a
22
basic feature of the Constitution of India. That the

right to contest election cannot be curtailed by the
imposition of criteria which are unreasonable and
unrelated to the object sought to be achieved that is
democratic self governance.
Q. Because, the Impugned Ordinance is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Because, the Impugned
Ordinance
is ultra
vires of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India inasmuch as it arbitrarily and

unreasonably differentiates between candidates who
possess the prescribed qualification and those who do
not possess the prescribed qualification. Further, the
impugned
candidates
and
ordinance
also
discriminates
having formal educational
candidates
who
are
literate
between
qualifications
even
without
possessing a formal educational qualification. By

disentitling the class of potential candidates who do
not possess formal educational qualifications, the
Impugned Ordinance arbitrarily denies equality before
the law to all such persons. The Honble High Court of
Rajasthan has in fact recognized such a distinction as
unreasonable and arbitrary in Ismail v. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1958 Raj 96, wherein, while upholding
the constitutionality of a provision that required
23
candidates to be elected to municipal posts to be able

to read and write in Hindi, stated:
If it were provided in the Rule that the minimum
qualification of literacy would be that the candidate
should have passed the first primary class from a
school, then it would have excluded all those persons
who had studied privately and not joined any school.
That provision would have worked to the detriment of
more persons and it would have unreasonably
excluded those literate persons who had studied
privately or in an unrecognised school and who were
otherwise more literate than the persons who had
passed the first primary class. Or, if the Rule were to
provide that a candidate should be capable of reading
and writing Hindi up to the First Standard of the
Primary Class, even then, there would have been
some vagueness left and there would still be some
discretion left with the person taking the test whether
the candidate fulfills the qualification or not.
R. Because, the impugned ordinance is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution as there is no reasonable nexus
between the criteria laid down in the Impugned
Ordinance and the object that it seeks to achieve. It is
submitted that requirement of formal educational
qualification is not essential for effectively discharging
any duties and functions vested in members of
Panchayat and Zila Parishads. Section 32 of the
Haryana
Act
which
lays
down
the
various
responsibilities of Sarpanch are limited to exercise of

supervisory and administrative oversight over the
functions of Panchayat. Moreover, the exercise of such
24
powers is subject to a resolution, rules or direction of

the concerned State Government. In nutshell, a
Sarpanch is a conduit between the State Government
and the constituents of the Panchayat. Therefore, the
literacy requirement prescribed by the Impugned
Ordinance is irrational, arbitrary and violates the
constitutional equality guaranteed under Article 14.
Honble
Supreme
Court
in
its
judgment
dated
13.03.2003 in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs.

Union of India reported in 2003 (4) SCC 399 , while
deciding on requirement of MLA or MP election
candidates to disclose their educational qualifications,
observed as follows:
Consistent with the principle of adult suffrage, the
Constitution has not prescribed any educational
qualification for being Member of the House of the
People or Legislative Assembly. That apart, I am
inclined to think that the information relating to
educational qualifications of contesting candidates
does not serve any useful purpose in the present
context and scenario. It is a well know fact that

barring a few exceptions, most of the candidates
elected to Parliament or the State Legislatures are
fairly educated even if they are not Graduates or
Post-Graduates. To think of illiterate candidates is
based on a factually incorrect assumption. To say that
well educated persons such as those having graduate
and post-graduate qualifications will be able to serve
25
the people better and conduct themselves in a better

way inside and outside the House is nothing but
overlooking the stark realities. The experience and
events in public life and the Legislatures have
demonstrated that the dividing line between the well
educated and less educated from the point of view of
his/her calibre and culture is rather thin. Much
depends on the character of the individual, the sense
of devotion to duty and the sense of concern to the
welfare of the people. These characteristics are not
the monopoly of well educated persons.
S. Because, the Impugned Ordinance, leads to large
scale exclusion of rural population and denial of
opportunity to contest election in the PRI process of
2015. As per the data available from 2011 Census,
overall
literacy rate of 76.64%, with womens
literacy at 66.77%. In rural areas of Haryana, it was

72.74% overall
, and 60.97% for women.
The Socio-Economic and
Caste Census 2011 has provided the following figures

regarding the literacy rates in the state of Haryana:
26
Total Population
1 = No. of Illiterates
% 1 = Illiterates
16035620
5495399
34.27%
2 = No. of Literates but below

primary
% 2 = Literates but below primary
3 = No. of Primary
1823080
% 3 = Primary
4 = No. of Middle
% 4 = Middle
5 = No. of Secondary
% 5 = Secondary
6 = No. of Higher Secondary
% 6 = Higher Secondary
7 = No. of Graduate or Higher
15.60%
2073654
12.93%
2035958
12.70%
1327897
8.28%
663668
% 7 = Graduate or Higher
8 = No. of Other (Specify
% 8 = Other (Specify)
4.14%
114742
0.72%
11.37%
2500961
A TrueTrue copy of the relevant extract of the SocioEconomic and Caste Census 2011 as available on the
website
27
http://secc.gov.in/statewiseDistrictEducationProfileRe
port dated nil is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P- 5
T. BECAUSE the above extracted SECC data would show
that about 61.24 % population would not be able to
meet the criteria of 8th pass, and 74.17% population
would not be able to meet the criteria of matriculate
pass
as
envisaged
in
the
impugned
ordinance,
therefore excluding almost three fourths of populations

of the state of Haryana from being eligible to contest
for becoming a Sarpanch or a Panch of a Gram
Panchayat or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila
Parishad.
U. Imposition of a minimum 8th class level of schooling as
a
qualification
disqualification
would
of
therefore
majority
of
to
lead
to
population.
It
is
pertinent mention how the term literate was defined in

the 2001 Census
09. Literates
A person aged 7 years and above who can both read
and write with understanding in any language has
been taken as literate. It is not necessary for a person
to have received any formal education or passed any
minimum educational standard for being treated as
literate. People who were blind and could read in
Braille are treated to be literates.
A person, who can neither read nor write or can only
read but cannot write in any language, is treated as
illiterate. All children of age 6 years or less, even if
going to school and have picked up reading and
writing, are treated as illiterate.
28
V. Because, the Impugned Ordinance disentitles vast

sections of deserving rural population from contesting
for the said positions in PRIs without any fault of
theirs. It is submitted that the literacy rate in the
Country according to census 2011 are abysmally low
(i.e. 74.04%), with rural women's literacy much lower
than
the
average.
It
is
pertinent
to
mention
that literacy as a measure is defined merely as a skill

to read and write, with no conditionality of schooling.
W. According to the census, 31.4% of households in the

state do not have access to toilets. Of the nearly three
million
rural
in the state, 42.3% defecate in the open.
households
Thus
the
imposition, under subclause (w) of section 175 bars

and disqualifies several worthy candidates to the
Panchayati Raj Institution.
X. Because subclause (aa), (t), (u), (v) and (w) of no

rational Nexus with the objects and purpose of the
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994.
Y. Because no survey or statistical analysis has been

carried on by the respondent State to examine the ill
effects of the impugned Ordinance.
29
Z. That the above given figures indicate, the law on the

Right To Free And Compulsory Education, 2009 is a
distant dream for several rural population and the
same is failure of the State Government. The State has
failed in its duty to provide free and accessible
education and for that reason also cannot insist on
this precondition.
AA.
Because the ordinance, though facially gender
neutral, has a disparate impact on men and women in

that there is a marked difference in the literacy and
educational qualifications between men and women,
denying more opportunity to women than to men.
AB.
Because women are prevented by the gendered
roles ascribed to them from entering educational

institutions including schools, their destiny being seen
as lived in the private sphere and hence denied access
to education
AC.
Because the whole purpose of reservation for
women is to take them from the private sphere to that

public sphere and the condition imposed vide the
impugned ordinance negates the object and purpose of
reservations.
30
AD.
Because the State has failed in its obligation to
provide the infrastructure to build the capability of

education and hence cannot insist by law that
candidates in order to contest election ought to have a
certain minimum education.
AE.
Because, in any event, the Right To Free And
Compulsory Education Act was enacted only in 2009 ,

hence assuming it is implemented in full, a person
would acquire the required eligibility only in 2029/30
and hence it is unreasonable and discriminatory to
insists at this point on education as a condition of
eligibility
AF.
Because
the
impugned
ordinance
cannot
disentitle a person to exercise his/her fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) to contest
Panchayat
elections
due
to
the
failure
of
the
Government to provide compulsory primary education

to all its citizen. That the citizen cannot be made to
pay the price for failure of the Government to provide
education to all. Because, the lack of education among
the rural population is squarely a failure of the State
Government and therefore it is discriminatory to
disentitle citizens without any fault of theirs. Prior to
the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002,
31
the Article 45 in its original form stated that The

State shall endeavor to provide, within a period of ten
years from the Commencement of this Constitution, for
free and compulsory education for all children until they
complete the age of fourteen years. Thus the State was
under a constitutional obligation to provide free and
compulsory education to children, which it did not and
as
such
providing
educational
qualification
for
contesting Panchayat election is discriminatory and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
AG.
Because, the impugned ordinance, is violative of
Article 15 of the Constitution. That Article 15 not only

provides that the State shall not discriminate against
any citizen on grounds only of sex, but Article 15 (3)
also provides that nothing in the said Article shall
prevent the State from making any special provision
for women and children. It is submitted that, the
parliament
in
its
wisdom
has
brought
in
the
73rd Constitutional amendment, whereby Article 15 (3)

has
been
further
given
expression
in
terms
of
providing 50% reservation for women in Panachyati

Raj Institutions vide Article 243 D. Moreover the data
stated herein above also indicates that female illiteracy
is very high in Haryana. Thus, in such circumstance,
32
the impugned ordinance makes the special provision of

reservation for women an otiose and a large segment of
women would be disqualified to contest election and
would not be able to reap the benefits of special
provisions made in their favour.
AH.
Because,
Amendment)
the
Act,
Constitution
1992
(Seventy-third
(73rd Amendment)
which
accorded constitutional legitimacy to the Panchayat

Raj Institutions does not impose any requirement of
formal
educational
qualifications
for
becoming
member of the Panchayat. The same being the

intention of the Parliament has been reiterated in the
Report of Committee of Nyaya Panchayat prepared by
the Union Minister of Panchayati Raj (2007) in the
following words:
The Indian Constitution does not wisely enact a

literacy qualification for adult suffrage, meaning both
the right to contest and vote at elections. The
Panchayati
Raj
institutions,
conceived,
provide
for
no
as
constitutionally
literacy/numeracy
thresholds (and rightly so) for the constitutionally

mandated tasks of democratic decentralized forms of
local governance. Why, we may well ask, be the
situation any the different with the decentralization of
NPS adjudicative functions at the local level? The
objection to the 'lay' and elected NPs, seen in this
light, remains simply a function of unconstitutional
prejudice.
33
AI. Because, the Impugned Ordinance is contrary to the

letter and spirit of the Part IX of the Constitution as
amended
by
the
Constitution
(Seventy-third
Amendment) Act, 1992 (73rd Amendment) introduced

to accord constitutional supremacy to Panchayat Raj
Institution (PRIs) thereby recognizing their importance
as a tool of rural emancipation and democracy. The
Honble Supreme Court in Bhanumati v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [2010] 7 SCR 585, made the following
observations on the importance of PRIs in the
constitutional framework:
Amendment metamorphosed to a distinct part of

Constitutional dispensation with detailed provision for
functioning of Panchayat. The main purpose behind
this is to ensure democratic decentralization on the
Gandhian principle of participatory democracy so that
the Panchayat may become viable and responsive
peoples bodies as an institution of governance and
thus it may acquire the necessary status and function
with dignity by inspiring respect of common man.
AJ.
Because, the Impugned Ordinance purports to
relegate our country back to dark ages which has

governed through facile, top-down and centralized
approach and thereby neglecting the needs and
concerns of the rural populace. The Honble Supreme
Court has time and again lamented on the fact that
the dominance of few urban educated persons in
34
matters of governance and decision making process is

antithesis to local self-governance or Gandhian vision
of Gram Swaraj. In [2010] 7 SCR 585, this Honble
Court has observed that the vast majority of the rural
masses still have to obey decisions taken by few people
living in metropolitan centers representing an alien
culture and ethos.
AK.
Because, the Impugned Ordinance would lead to
ascendancy of feudal mindset among rural populace

which is starkly contrary to the purpose of the
73rd Amendment. The Honble Supreme Court on
several
occasions
has
strongly
expressed
its
discontentment in realizing the constitutional ideal of

local self-government. The Honble Supreme Court in
[2010] 7 SCR 585 noted that:
The Panchayati Raj Institutions structured under the

said amendment are meant to initiate changes so that
the rural feudal oligarchy lose their ascendancy in
village affairs and the voiceless masses, who have
been rather amorphous, may realize their growing
strength. Unfortunately, effect of these changes by
way of Constitutional Amendment has not been fully
realized in the semi-feudal set up of Indian politics in
which still voice of reason is drowned in an uneven
conflict with the mythology of individual infallibility and
omniscience. Despite high ideals of Constitutional
philosophy, rationality in our polity is still subordinated
to political exhibitionism, intellectual timidity and petty
35
manipulation.
The
73rd
Amendment
of
the
Constitution is addressed to remedy these evils.

AL.
Because, the Impugned Ordinance is an assault
on the rural autonomy, inasmuch as it arbitrarily and

unreasonably denies effective participation of rural
population which is necessary for inclusive and
representative governance of local bodies. That the
PRIs
were
conceived
to
cure
infirmities
in
representation of all sections of rural population. The

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the
73rd Amendments states as follows:
Though the Panchayati Raj Institutions have been in

existence for a long time, it has been observed that
these institutions have not been able to acquire the
status and dignity of viable and responsive peoples
bodies due to a number of reasons including absence
of
regular
elections,
prolonged
suppressions,
insufficient representation of weaker sections like

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women,
inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial
resources.
AM.
Because the Haryana Panchayat Act, 1994 came
into force with an aim to enable villagers to govern

their village over issues of local importance and resolve
them. That at the time of enforcement, the Act did not
lay down any minimum educational qualification to
contest elections. Statement of object and reasons of
the Haryana Panchayat Act is as under:
36
Statement of object and reasons. - Though the

Panchayati Raj Institutions have been existence in
the country for a long period, it has been observed
that these institutions have not been able to acquire
the status and dignity of viable and responsive
people's bodies due to a variety of reasons including
absence
of
supersessions,
regular
inadequate
elections,
prolonged
representation
of
weaker sections like Scheduled Castes and

women, insufficient devolution of powers and lack of
financial resources.
In the light of past experience and in view of the
shortcomings which have been noticed, a new Part IX
relating to Panchayats has been added in the
Constitution of India by the Constitution (73rd
Amendment) Act, 1992, which has come into force
with effect from 24th April, 1993 and the States have
been directed to amend or appeal their existing law
which is inconsistent with the provisions of the said
amendment within one year from the commencement
of the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992.
Accordingly, it is proposed to repeal the Punjab Gram
Panchayat Act 1952 (Punjab Act No. 4 of 1953) and
the Punjab Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Punjab Act
No. 3 of 1961) and to formulate a new single Act,
namely "The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994," in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
(73rd Amendment) Act, 1992.
The Bill,inter alia to (a) establish three tier system of Panchayats in the
State,
i.e.
Gram
Panchayats
at
village
level,
Panchayat Samitis at block level and Zila Parishads

at district level;
37
(b) establish a Gram Panchayat at village level having

population of not less than 500 giving relaxation of
minimum population of 500 consisting minimum of 6
panches and maximum 20 panches on the basis of
population excluding Sarpanch; and with a UpSarpanch to be elected by and from amongst
Panches;
(c) establish a Panchayat Samiti at block level
consisting of minimum 10 members and maximum 30
members on the basis of population of the block.
(d) establish a Zila Parishad at district level consisting
of minimum 10 members and maximum 30 members
on the basis of population of the district;
(e) elect Sarpanches, all Panches and Members of
Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads by direct
election by voters of the wards to be constituted in
each Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila
Parishad for the purpose of election;
(f) provide representation to Scheduled Castes on the
basis of their population and the population of
Panchayats at each level in proportion to their
population and the number of seats to be allotted in
the wards having majority population of these castes.
(g) provide representation of women (including

Scheduled Castes women) equal to one third seats of
the total seats in each Panchayat at each level;
(h) review the reserved seats after every census;
(i)
provide
representation
to
the
offices
of
Sarpanches, Chairmen and Presidents to Scheduled

Castes on the basis of their population and to women
being not less than one third of such offices;
38
(j) provide representation to M.L.As. concerned in

each Panchayat Samitis and M.Ps. concerned in
each Zila Parishad as ex-officio members with right of
vote in all proceedings except the election and no
confidence motion against Chairman/Vice-Chairman,
President/Vice President;
(k) provide representation to Sarpanches equal to the
one-fifth of the total seats in each Panchayat Samiti,
as ex-officio members for every one year; by rotation
and lots;
(l) provide reservation of one seat in Panchayats at
each level to the persons belonging to Backward
Classes in wards having majority population of
Backward Classes and to review after every census;
(m) disqualify persons for election of Panchayats at
each level, having more than two children after one
year of the date of commencement of this Act to
popularise
Family
Welfare/Family
Planning
Programme;
(n) devolution of powers and responsibilities upon

Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis with
respect to the preparation of plans for economic
development
and
social
justice
and
the
implementation of development schemes including

the matters listed in 11th Schedule of the Constitution
of India;
(o) devolve powers upon Zila Parishads to approve
the Budget of Panchayat Samitis and give them
advice for better performance, within their jurisdiction;
(p) fix tenure of five year of Gram Panchayats,
Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads and in case of
dissolution, to hold election within six months;
39
(q) constitute a Finance Commission to review the

financial position and recommend resources of
income and principles of grant-in-aid from the
Consolidated Fund of the State and determine the
taxes to
be
appropriated by, or assigned to
Panchayati Raj Institutions; and

(r) constitute a State Election Commission and vest in
the State Election Commission the superintendence,
direction and control of election to the Panchayati Raj
Institutions and Municipalities.
The Act seeks to achieve the aforesaid objectives.
AN.
Because, the Impugned Ordinance is a serious
assault on the participatory democracy which is an

integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
Article 40 of the Constitution of India which provides
for Organization of Village Panchayats lays that: The
State shall take steps to organise village panchayats
and endow them with such powers and authority as
may be necessary to enable them to function as units of
self-government.
AO.
Because, the effect of the Impugned Ordinance
causes grave prejudice to weaker sections of the

society, including rural poor, women, SCs, STs and
OBCs and is contrary to the objective of the Part IX of
40
the
Constitution
and
the
Haryana
Act
enacted
pursuant to it.
AP.Because, the Impugned Ordinance is violative of the
spirit
Article
243D
which
provides mandatory
reservation of one-third of all seats in Panchayats to

women introduced with a view to encourage women
from all backgrounds, and therefore discriminatory.
AQ.
Because, the Impugned Ordinance is violative of
the spirit of Article 243D which provides mandatory

reservation of seats in Panchayats for SCs and STs in
proportion to their share of the Panchayat, introduced
with a view to encourage inclusive growth of rural
population, and therefore discriminatory.
AR.
Because, this Honble Court has held that a
legislation is not valid merely because there is

reasonable classification and that it has rational
relation with the object. In (1973) 1 SCC 500, this
Honble
Court
held
that
legislation
is
unconstitutional if it results in discrimination of one

section of minority, even if the legislation passes
muster under Article 14.
AS.
Because,
inconsistent to
the
impugned
ordinance
is
Article 21 of Universal declaration of
41
Human
Rights
1950
and
Article
25
of
The
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights

1973, which provides right to every citizen to take part
in public affairs and contest election without any
unreasonable restrictions. That on a number of
occasions this Honble Court of India has taken note of
international conventions and norms. Article 21 of
UDHR 1950 provides as follows:
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the

government of his country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public
service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed
in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by
secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political

Rights states:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity,
without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2
and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs,
directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic
elections which shall be, by universal and equal
42
suffrage
and
shall
be
held
by
secret
ballot,
guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the

electors
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to
public service in his country
AT.Because, the Constitution of India does not prescribe
any educational qualifications for exercising adult
suffrage, including for election to the Parliament of
India and State Legislature. Therefore, the educational
requirement for members of PRIs is discriminatory. In
this regard reference may be made to Article 101 and
102 of the Constitution of India which has relevant
provisions for Vacation of Seats and Disqualification of
Membership respectively, as well as to provisions of the
Representation of the People Act,1951.
Article 101: Vacation of Seats

(1)
No person shall be a member of both Houses of
Parliament
and
provision
shall
be
made
by
Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is

chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one
House or the other.
(2)
No person shall be a member both of Parliament
and of a House of the Legislature of a State, and if a

person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of
a House of the Legislature of [a State], then, at the
expiration of such period as may be specified in rules
made by the President, that person's seat in
Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has
43
previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the

State.
(3)
If a member of either House of Parliament:-
(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications

mentioned in [clause (1) or clause (2) of article 102],
or
(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand
addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the
case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the
Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,] his
seat shall thereupon become vacant:
[Provided that in the case of any resignation referred
to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or
otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks
fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,
is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or
genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.]
(4)
If for a period of sixty days a member of either
House of Parliament is without permission of the

House absent from all meetings thereof, the House
may declare his seat vacant:
Provided that in computing the said period of sixty
days no account shall be taken of any period during
which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for
more than four consecutive days.
Article 102: Disqualification of Members
(1)
A person shall be disqualified for being
chosen as, and for being, a member of either House

of Parliament
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the
Government of India or the Government of any State,
44
other than an office declared by Parliament by law not

to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared
by a competent court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily
acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under
any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a
foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made
by Parliament.
[Explanation.For the purposes of this clause] a
person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit
under the Government of India or the Government of
any State by reason only that he is a Minister either
for the Union or for such State.
(2)
A person shall be disqualified for being a
member of either House of Parliament if he is so

disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.]
AU.
Part II of the Representation of the People Act,
deals with the qualification and disqualifications. In

brief the qualifications pertain to the fact that the
person has to be an elector of the constituency in
which he/she is desirous of contesting the poll,
besides the fact that, in cases of reserved constituency
the person desirous of contesting election ought to
belongs to the category, for which the seat is reserved.
So far as disqualifications are concerned, it is provided
45
in Chapter III of Part II of the Representation of People

Act. Section 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A provides several
disqualifications, which does not include, educational
qualification, and as such the impugned Ordinance
introduces a disqualification which is neither there in
the Constitution nor there in the Representation of the
People Act, and as such is discriminatory to people
desirous of contesting Panchyat Polls.
AV.Because, the reasons stated by the State Government
to justify the Impugned Ordinance is unsubstantiated,
untrue and is a sad reflection of disrespect to rural
autonomy. There is no proof that a formally educated
member of the Panchayat can strengthen and improve
the Governance and check financial irregularities in
contrast to an illiterate who has not obtained a formal
educational qualification as recognized by the State
Government. Moreover, the problem of corruption and
other irregularities is a failure of the State machineries
which is to adducible to representative of people.
AW.
Because election to the post of Sarpanch is not a
Government
employment
therefore,
no
minimum
education qualification criteria to contest the election

for the Sarpanch can be validly be introduced by way
amending Ordinance 2014.
46
AX.
Because, it is submitted that State Government
has powers to introduce compulsory training for

members of Panchayat to cure the evil sought to be
achieved through the Impugned Ordinance.
AY.
Because,
the
impugned
Ordinance
is
also
discriminatory against rural population in terms of

electing their representatives in local government
whereas in urban areas people are facing no such
limitations.
AZ.
Because,
Governor
ordinance
envisaged
making
under
Article
power
of
the
213
of
the
Constitution ought not to have been exercised, as it

has been done in the present case. That under the
Constitutional scheme the said power ought to be
exercised only when the circumstances exist which
render it necessary for the Governor to take necessary
action. Moreover, the exercise of the said power to the
satisfaction of the Governor is subject to judicial
review. In the present case, no such circumstances
exist to call for the exercise of power under Article 213
of the Constitution. On the contrary, the data placed
herein above is evident of the fact that, there is large
scale
illiteracy
amongst
rural
masses,
more
so
amongst women, and as such any introduction of
47
educational
purpose
qualification
of
participatory
would
PRIs
defeat
the
very
and
as
such
unconstitutional
BA.
Because it was held in the matter of Dulari
Devi and others Versus State of Rajasthan and

others,
AIR 2015 Rajasthan 84:
We are, prima-facie, satisfied that in the State of

Rajasthan in which the rate of literacy and the
opportunity of formal education was limited, the
prescription of any disqualification on the ground of
qualification for contesting elections in the Panchayati
Raj Institutions, excluding the masses, who did not
have an opportunity of formal education, is violative of
the right of equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The Panchayati Raj Institutions
foster democratic principles of governance at the
grass root level. Article 40 in Part IV (Directive
Principles
of
State
Policy),
provided
for
an
organisation of village panchayats. The State was

under an obligation to take steps to organise village
panchayats and endow them with such powers and
authority as may be necessary, to enable them to
function as units of self-government. The 73rd
Amendment(Rajiv Gandhi Amendment), introducing
Part IX-The Panchayats, in the Constitution of India,
containing Article 243, 243A and 243O, gave the
Panchayats a constitutional status. A Gram Sabha
consists of persons registered in the electoral rolls
relating to a village comprised within the area of
Panchayat at the village level under Article 243(b).
The 'Panchayat', defined under Article 243(d), is
48
provided
as
an
institution
of
self
governance
constituted under Article 243B, for the rural areas.

The entire body of villagers are given rights to
participate in the meetings of the Panchayat for
inclusive
self
governance,
self
rule
and
self
determination for social up liftment, which is not

dependent on any educational qualification. The
disqualification for membership, under Article 243F of
the Constitution, to be prescribed by the Legislature
of the State, could not have provided for any such
condition attached, which may have taken away the
rights
of
the
self
governance,
except
for
disqualifications, which have material object to

achieve, such as the character, integrity or morality of
the person to represent. The persons who are
engaged in unlawful activities or are defaulters, or
acquired any disqualification which may have any
nexus with the object, sought to be achieved, namely
for representation, may be excluded participation in
Panchayats. Any other disqualification will negate the
object of self governance at grass root level, peoples
participation, and social justice.
32. We do not find that the State Government has

placed before us any empirical data, which may
suggest that there are sufficient number of qualified
persons available in the rural areas, which will not
amount to exclusion of the large number of people in
the village, especially women, to be represented, to
lead the Panchayati Raj Institutions. We are also
satisfied that even if such empirical data was
collected, the exclusion of those who did not have an
opportunity of formal education, could not have been
denied participation in the democratic institutions and
for this reason, no educational qualifications have
49
been prescribed for elections in any of the institutions

including the Panchayati Raj Institutions, or in the
Legislative Assembly, or even Parliament in India.
One such attempt failed in the State of Maharashtra.
In fact, prescription of educational qualification for
inclusion for contesting elections in any democratic
institution, unless there is strong nexus with the
object, to be achieved, is an anti thesis to the
democratic governance of the institution in a republic.
It is a negation of the very object of purpose of
enacting the Constitution of India, described in its
preamble.
The
poor,
underprivileged
and
downtrodden, cannot be denied participation in a

democracy merely on the ground that she does not
have educational qualification for such inclusion.
33. In order to lead in a democratic governance, a
person is required to understand the needs of social
development and require the mental attribute of being
wise in the estimation of the people, who elect her for
representation. Any law which disqualifies a large
section of rural population on the ground of non
attaining the educational qualifications, is thus, primafacie, arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.
34. We are also not prima-facie satisfied with the
contention that large amount of money placed in the
hands of the Sarpanchas, issuance of cheques by
them, preparation of accounts and their official
capacity as an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act,
2005, or any Government Order, which may make
them
accountable,
educational
Panchayat
would
qualification
is
provided
require
inasmuch
with
minimum
as
every
Secretariat,
which
includes a Panchayat Assistant, an Accountant and a

Junior Engineer. It is, therefore, not necessary for a
Sarpanch to have minimum educational qualifications
for representation of her people in the Panchayat, or
Zila Parishad. She has sufficient assistance of
50
persons with minimum qualification to advise her for

proper discharge of her duties and functions. The
formal education may have relevance in the future
when the goal of universal primary education is
achieved, with the enactment of Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, enforced
on 01.04.2010, but a person who is to be more than
21 years of age in rural areas with no opportunity of
primary or secondary level of education in the
absence of schools, may not be disqualified to take
part for representation
in the
Panchayati
Raj
Institutions. The republicanism in the country has

allowed many persons, who did not even have any
formal education, to rise and lead. Some of them had
also rises to the position of Chief Ministers of the
States.
35. We cannot, but agree with the argument of the

Advocate General that the motives for promulgating
the Ordinance and the existence of circumstances,
which rendered it necessary for the Governor to take
immediate action, are not subject to judicial review.
An Ordinance promulgated in the Legislative powers
of the Governor, has all the attributes of Legislation,
which is required to be ratified by the Legislature
under Article 213, 213(2)(b) of the Constitution of
India. The Ordinance, however, is the law which can
be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. If the disqualification prescribed
by the Ordinance deprives a large section of the
society to participate in the democratic institution of
Panchayati Raj and runs counter to the object of the
73rd
Amendment,
it
may
be
unconstitutional by the Court of law
declared
as
51
BB.
That in Bhanumati And Others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh Through its Principal Secretary

And Others (supra), the Honble Supreme Court,
referring to the debates in the Constituent Assembly,
which led to the enactment of the Constitution of
India, referred to the 73rd Amendment as a powerful
tool of social engineering held as follows
13. The Constitution's quest for an inclusive

governance voiced in the Preamble is not consistent
with panchayat being treated merely as a unit of selfgovernment and only as part of directive principle. If
the relevant Constituent Assembly Debates are
perused one finds that even that constitutional
provision
about
panchayat
was
inducted
after
strenuous efforts by some of the members. From the

debates we do not fail to discern a substantial
difference of opinion between one set of members
who wanted to finalise the Constitution solely on the
parliamentary
model
by
totally
ignoring
the
importance of panchayat principles and another

group of members who wanted to mould our
Constitution
on
Gandhian
principles
of
Village
Panchayat.
22. Under the Seventy-third Amendment of the
Constitution, panchayat became an "institution of selfgovernance" which was previously a mere unit, under
Article 40. The Seventy-third Amendment heralded a
new era but it took nearly more than four decades for
our Parliament to pass this epoch-making Seventythird Constitution Amendment- a turning point in the
history of local self-governance with sweeping
consequences in view of decentralisation, grass-root
52
democracy, people's participation, gender equality

and social justice.
23. Decentralisation is perceived as a precondition for
preservation of the basic values of a free society.
Republicanism which is the "sine qua non" of this
amendment is compatible both with democratic
socialism
and
radical
liberalism.
Republicanism
presupposes that laws should be made by active

citizens working in concert. Price of freedom is not
merely eternal vigilance but perpetual and creative
citizen's activity.
24. This Seventy-third Amendment is a very powerful
"tool of social engineering" and has unleashed
tremendous potential of social transformation to bring
about a sea change in the age-old, oppressive, antihuman and status quoist traditions of Indian society. It
may be true that this amendment will not see a
quantum jump but it will certainly initiate a thaw and
pioneer a major change, may be in a painfully slow
process.
26. What was in a nebulous state, as one of the
directive principles under Article 40, through the
Seventy-third
Constitutional
Amendment
metamorphosed to a distinct part of constitutional

dispensation with detailed provision for functioning of
panchayat. The main purpose behind this is to ensure
democratic decentralisation on the Gandhian principle
of participatory democracy so that the panchayat may
become viable and responsive people's bodies as an
institution of governance and thus it may acquire the
necessary status and function with dignity by inspiring
respect of common man. In our judgment, this
Seventy-third Amendment of the Constitution was
introduced for strengthening the Preambular vision of
democratic republicanism which is inherent in the
constitutional framework."
53
BC.
Because, the Petitioners are constrained to
approach this Honble Court, under Article 226 of the

Constitution
of
India,
because,
the
impugned
ordinance, violates fundamental rights of the public of

Haryana. Further the State Election Commission has
issued the impugned notification on 14.08.2015,
stating therein that the process of election shall end
on 30.09.2015.
BD.
That the impugned actions of the Respondents
are arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 14 of the

BE.
That even before coming into force of the Part IX
in the Constitution of India in 1992, containing

articles 243, 243A to 243 O, Haryana had the
Panchayat Act. In 1953, the Haryana Panchayat Act
was enacted and Village Panchayats were established
throughout the state. Haryana has the distinction of
being
the
pioneer
in
accepting
the
scheme
of
democratic decentralization envisaging a three-tier

system of representative bodies at the village, block,
and district levels.
BF.
That the term Panchayat is defined in Article
243(d) of the Constitution which means an institution
54
(by
whatever
name
called)
of
self-government
constituted under article 243B, for the rural areas.
BG.
That
the
purpose
and
object
of
having
Panchayats is to devolve power of local self-government

at
the
grassroots
level.
The
said
Part-IX
was
introduced by the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act,

1992, w.e.f. 24th April, 1993.
BH.
That the power, authorities and responsibilities
of Panchayats are provided under Article 243G of the

Constitution of India which is reproduced below:
243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats:Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature
of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such
powers and authority and may be necessary to enable them
to function as institutions of self-government and such law
may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and
responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level,
subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with
respect tothe preparation of plans for economic development and
social justice;
the implementation of schemes for economic development
and social justice as may be entrusted to them including
those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh
Schedule.
55
BI. That the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution of

India referred to under Article 243G reads as follows:
ELEVENTH SCHEDULE
[Article 243 G]
1. Agriculture, including agricultural extension.

2. Land improvement, implementation of land reforms,
land consolidation and soil conservation.
3. Minor irrigation, water management and watershed
development.
4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry.
5. Fisheries.
6. Social forestry and farm forestry.
7. Minor forest produce.
8. Small scale industries, including food processing
industries.
9. Khadi, village and cottage industries.
10. Rural housing.
11. Drinking water.
12. Fuel and fodder.
13. Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other
means of communication.
14. Rural electrification, including distribution of electricity.
15. Non-conventional energy sources.
56
16. Poverty alleviation programme.

17. Education, including primary and secondary schools.
18. Technical training and vocational education.
19. Adult and non-formal education.
20. Libraries.
21. Cultural activities.
22. Markets and fairs.
23. Health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary
health centres and dispensaries.
24. Family welfare.
25. Women and child development.
26. Social welfare, including welfare of the handicapped
and mentally retarded.
27. Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular, of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
28. Public distribution system.
29. Maintenance of community assets.
BJ.
That
the
Article
243
(F)
deals
with
the
disqualifications for membership of a Panchayat in

various capacities. Article 243 (F) is reproduced herein
under for ready reference of the Honble Court as
under:-
243F. Disqualifications for membership.-
57
A person shall
be disqualified for being chosen
as, and for being, a member of a Panchayatif he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time
being in force
for the purposes of elections to the
Legislature of the State concerned:

Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the
ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if
he has attained the age of twenty-one years;
if he is so disqualified by or under any law made
by the Legislature of the State.
If any question arises as to whether a member of a
Panchayat has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question
shall be referred for the decision of such authority and
in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by
law, provide.
A bare perusal of aforesaid Article provides that a

person can only be disqualified by or under any law
made by the legislature of the State.
That in view of the 73rd amendment, of the Constitution
of India, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act was passed in
1994. The Act incorporated mandatory provisions of the
73rd amendment, besides a few others such as the
provisions on Gram Sabha and reservation in the
election of members as well as chairman of such
Sabhas for people belonging to OBC category. The
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinunder
referred as Act of 1994) provides functions and
powers of PRIs.
58
BK.
That one of the important schemes which is
implemented by the Panchayats is the Mahatama

Gandhi
National
Rural
Employment
Guarantee
Scheme (MGNREGA). Funding for the said Scheme

in relation to wages comes entirely from the Central
Government
to
the
State
Governments.
State
Governments makes grants scheme under that Act in

relation to the material component in the rural areas.
The implementation of the Scheme is delegated to the
Panchayats. However, it bears mentioning that the
following
officers
of
the
State
Government
are
appointed to assist the Panchayats in its working:
1. Panchayat Secretary, called the Gram Sewak;
2. Rozgar Assistant, called the Rozgar Sahayak;
3. Data Entry Operator;
4. An Accountant; and
5.
BL.
direct
Junior Engineer.
Because it is submitted that there will be a

and
inevitable
consequences
of
the
disqualification based on education and other criteria

as introduced by the impugned ordinance rendering
the ordinance unconstitutional.
It is submitted that
59
introduction
of
the
educational
and
other
qualifications has resulted in denial of opportunity to

contest the elections and has also denied to the voter a
choice of candidates rendering the ordinance arbitrary
and unconstitutional.
BM.
Because
it
is
well-established
that,
the
differentia which is the basis of the classification and

the object of the Act are distinct things and what is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between
them.
In
short,
while
Article
14
forbids
class
discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing

liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a
large number of other persons similarly situated in
relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the
liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid
classification for the purpose of legislation, provided
such classification is not arbitrary in the sense above
mentioned. [R.K. Garg v. UOI, 1981 (4) SCC 675,
Para 6] However, the whole object and purpose of Part
IX of the Constitution of India to bring democracy to
the
grassroots
level
have
been
frustrated
by
introducing a disqualification which has no rational

nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, viz.,
local self governance.
60
BN.
Because it is surprising and astonishing that
the aforesaid amendment was made in a hot-haste by

the respondents without making any study in regard
to the same.
BO.
Because the petitioners submits that the said
disqualification is unconstitutional and ultra vires the

powers of the State as also ultra vires Part IX of the
Constitution of India, in as much as it effectively
disqualifies a large majority of the persons from
contesting elections to the Gram Panchayat, to the
Panchayat
Samitis,
and
Zila
Parishads
resulting
exclusion of eligible persons from contesting elections.

The
said
exclusion
disproportionately
disqualifies
women as the literacy level of women in the State of

Haryana is lower than that of men.
BP.
That the data pertaining to Haryanas literacy
rates would reveal that for people born before the 80s,
who had very little opportunity to go to school, the new
rules about educational qualification has meant a
complete exclusion from the PRI governance setup. It
is important to note that the census data shows only
literacy rates. Being literate does not qualify you for
contesting in the PRIs. What
is
required
is
the
61
academic qualification of being a 8th pass for Women

and SCs or 10th pass for the rest.
It is submitted that the census data of 2011 has

still not released the data of age against educational
qualifications and therefore, the
number of women
being excluded cannot be known.
BQ.
That earlier also, when the State Government
made the qualification of not more than two children

in the year 1994, then also a cut off date was
prescribed in the year 1995.
BR.
Because the impugned Ordinance, by the State
of Haryana prescribes for the disqualification of

persons from contesting Panchayat elections based on
educational qualification at the level of the Gram
Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad.
It is submitted that no such disqualification is

provided
in
the
Constitution
of
India
for
disqualification of elections for Members of Parliament

or to the State Assembly, and for that reason also the
62
said ordinance is bad in law, discriminatory and

violates Article 14.
BS.
Because the Constitution of India does not
prescribe any educational qualifications for exercising

adult suffrage, including for election to the Parliament
of
India
and
State
Legislature.
Therefore,
the
educational requirement for members of PRIs is

discriminatory. In this regard reference may be made
to Article 101 and 102 of the Constitution of India
which has relevant provisions for Vacation of Seats
and Disqualification of Membership respectively, as
well as to provisions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951.
Article 101: Vacation of Seats

(1)
No person shall be a member of both Houses
of Parliament
and provision shall be made by
Parliament by law for the
vacation
by
person who is chosen a member of both

Houses of his seat in one House or the other.
(2)
No person shall be a member both of
Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a

State, and if a person is chosen a
member both
of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature

of [a State], then, at the expiration of such
period as may be
specified in rules made by the
President, that person's seat in
Parliament
shall
63
become
vacant,
unless
he
has
previously
resigned his seat in the Legislature of the

State.
(3)
(a)
If a member of either House of Parliament:becomes subject to any of the disqualifications
mentioned in [clause (1) or clause (2) of article 102],

or
(b)
resigns his seat by writing under his hand
addressed to
the
Chairman or the Speaker,
as the case may be, and
his resignation is accepted
by the Chairman or the
Speaker, as the case may
be,] his seat shall thereupon
become vacant:
[Provided that in the case of any resignation referred

to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or
otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks
fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,
is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or
genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.]
(4)
If for a period of sixty days a member of either
House of
Parliament is without permission of the
House absent from all
meetings
thereof,
the
House may declare his seat vacant:

Provided that in computing the said period of sixty
days no account shall be taken of any period during
which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for
more than four consecutive days.
Article 102: Disqualification of Members
(1)
A person shall be disqualified for being chosen
as, and for
being, a member of either House of
Parliament
(a)
if he holds any office of profit under the
Government of
India or the Government of any
64
State, other than an
office
declared
Parliament by law not to disqualify

(b)
its holder;
if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared
by a
competent court;
(c)
if he is an un-discharged insolvent;
(d)
by
if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily

acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is
under any
acknowledgment
adherence to a
(e)
of
allegiance
or
foreign State;
if he is so disqualified by or under any law
made by
Parliament.
[Explanation.For the purposes of this clause] a

person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit
under the Government of India or the Government of
any State by reason only that he is a Minister either
for the Union or for such State.
(2)
A person shall be disqualified for being a
member of either
House of Parliament if he is so
disqualified under the Tenth
Schedule.]
Part II of the Representation of the People Act, deals

with the qualification and disqualifications. In brief the
qualifications pertain to the fact that the person has to
be an elector of the constituency in which he/she is
desirous of contesting the poll, besides the fact that,
in cases of reserved constituency the person desirous
of contesting election ought to belong to the category,
for
which
the
seat
is
reserved.
So
far
as
disqualifications are concerned, it is provided in

Chapter III of Part II of the Representation of People
Act. Section 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A provides several
disqualifications, which does not include, educational
qualification, and as such the impugned Ordinance
introduces a disqualification which is neither there in
65
the Constitution nor there in the Representation of the

People Act, and as such is discriminatory to people
desirous of contesting Panchyat Polls.
Qualification
for
membership
of
the
State
Legislature
Article 173 of the Constitution of India
Qualification for membership of the State Legislature
A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a
seat in the Legislature of a State unless he
(a)
is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes
before some person

by the Election
authorised in that behalf
Commission
an
oath
affirmation according to the form set

the purpose in the
(b)
or
out for
Third Schedule;
is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative
Assembly, not less than
twenty five years of age
and in the case of a seat in the
Legislative
Council, not less than thirty years of age; and

(c)
possesses such other qualifications as may be
prescribed in
that
behalf by or under any law
made by Parliament.
Disqualifications described under the Representation
of Peoples Act, 1951, are as follows:
8. Disqualification on conviction for certain
offences.
(1) A person convicted of an offence punishable
under (a) section 153A (offence of promoting
enmity between different groups on ground of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery) or
section
171F
(offence
of
undue
influence
or
66
personation at an election) or sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 376 or section 376A or section
376B or section 376C or section 376D (offences
relating to rape) or section 498A (offence of cruelty
towards a woman by husband or relative of a
husband) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of
section 505 (offence of making statement creating or
promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or
offence relating to such statement in any place of
worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance
of
religious
worship
or
religious
ceremonies) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

or (b) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of
1955)
which
provides
for
punishment
for
the
preaching and practice of "untouchability", and for the

enforcement of any disability arising therefrom; or (c)
section
11 (offence
of
importing
or
exporting
prohibited goods) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of

1962); or (d) sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a
member of an association declared unlawful, offence
relating to dealing with funds of an unlawful
association or offence relating to contravention of an
order made in respect of a notified place) of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of
1967); or (e) the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act,
1973 (46 of 1973); or (f) the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(g) section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts) or
section 4 (offence of committing disruptive activities)
of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or h) section 7 (offence of
contravention of the provisions of sections 3 to 6) of
the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act,
1988 (41 of 1988); or (i) section 125 (offence of
promoting enmity between classes in connection with
the election) or section 135 (offence of removal of
ballot papers from polling stations) or section 135A
(offence of booth capturing) of clause (a) of sub-
67
section (2) of section 136 (offence of fraudulently

defacing or fraudulently destroying any nomination
paper) of this Act; 1 [or] 1 [(j) section 6 (offence of
conversion of a place of worship) of the Places of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991;] 2 [or] 3 [(k)
section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian National Flag
or the Constitution of India) or section 3 (offence of
preventing singing of National Anthem) of the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (69
of 1971),] 4 [; or] 4 [(l) the Commission of Sati
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988); or (m) the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); or
(n) the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of
2002),] 5 [shall be disqualified, where the convicted
person is sentenced to (i) only fine, for a period of
six years from the date of such conviction; (ii)
imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and
shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of
six years since his release.]
(2)
A person
convicted
for
the
contravention of
(a) any law providing for the prevention of hoarding or
profiteering; or
(b) any law relating to the adulteration of food or
drugs; or
(c) any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(28 of 1961);
(3) A person convicted of any offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two
years [other than any offence referred to in subsection (1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified
from the date of such conviction and shall continue to
be disqualified for a further period of six years since
his release.]
68
[(4)] Notwithstanding anything 8 [in sub-section (1),

sub-section (2) or sub-section (3)] a disqualification
under either subsection shall not, in the case of a
person who on the date of the conviction is a member
of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect
until three months have elapsed from that date or, if
within that period an appeal or application for revision
is brought in respect of the conviction or the
sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed
of by the court.
(a) "law providing for the prevention of hoarding or
profiteering" means any law, or any order, rule or
notification having the force of law, providing for (i)
the regulation of production or manufacture of any
essential commodity; (ii) the control of price at which
any essential commodity may be bought or sold; (iii)
the regulation of acquisition, possession, storage,
transport, distribution, disposal, use or consumption
of any essential commodity; (iv) the prohibition of the
withholding from sale of any essential commodity
ordinarily kept for sale; (b) "drug" has the meaning
assigned to it in the Durgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
(23 of 1940); (c) "essential commodity" has the
meaning assigned to it in the Essential Commodity
Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); (d) "food" has the meaning
assigned to it in the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 (37 of 1954).
8A. Disqualification on ground of corrupt
practices.
(1) The case of every person found guilty of a corrupt
practice by an order under section 99 shall be
submitted, as soon as may be, after such order takes
effect, by such authority as the Central Government
may specify in this behalf, to the President for
determination of the question as to whether such
person shall be disqualified and if so, for what period:
69
Provided that the period for which any person may be

disqualified under this sub-section shall in no case
exceed six years from the date on which the order
made in relation to him under section 99 takes effect.
(2) Any person who stands disqualified under section
8A of this Act as it stood immediately before the
commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1975 (40 of 1975), may, if the period of such
disqualification has not expired, submit a petition to
the President for the removal of such disqualification
for the unexpired portion of the said period.
(3) Before giving his decision on any question
mentioned in
sub-section (1) or on any petition
submitted under sub section (2), the President shall

obtain the opinion of the Election Commission on
such question or petition and shall act according to
such opinion.]
9.
Disqualification
for
dismissal
for
person
who
corruption or disloyalty. (1) A
having held an office under the Government of India

or under
the Government of any State has been
dismissed for corruption or for
disloyalty
to
the
State shall be disqualified for a period of five years

from the date of such dismissal. (2) For the
purposes of sub-section (1), a certificate
issued
by the Election Commission to the effect that a

person having held office under the Government of
India or under the Government of a State, has or has
not been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to
the State shall be conclusive proof of the fact:
Provided that no certificate to the effect that a person
has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to
the State shall be issued unless an opportunity of
being heard has been given to the said person.
70
9A. Disqualification for Government contracts,

etc. A person shall be disqualified if, and for so
long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him
in the course of his trade or business with the
appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or
for the execution of any works undertaken by, that
Government. Explanation.For the purposes of this
section, where a contract has been fully performed by
the person by whom it has been entered into with the
appropriate Government, the contract shall be
deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that
the Government has not performed its part of the
contract either wholly or in part.
10. Disqualification for office under Government

company.A person shall be disqualified if, and for
so long as, he is a managing agent, manager or
secretary of any company or corporation (other than a
cooperative society) in the capital of which the
appropriate Government has not less than twenty-five
per cent share
10A. Disqualification for failure to lodge

account of election
expenses.If the Election
Commission is satisfied that a person

(a) has failed to lodge an account of election
expenses within the time and in the manner required
by or under this Act; and (b) has no good reason or
justification for the failure, the Election Commission
shall, by order published in the Official Gazette,
declare him to be disqualified and any such person
shall be disqualified for a period of three years from
the date of the order.
71
11.
Removal
or
reduction
of
period
of
disqualification.-The Election Commission may, for

reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification
under this Chapter 1 [(except under section 8A)] or
reduce the period of any such disqualification.
BT.
Although the Article 243G enable States to make
laws prescribing disqualification, it is submitted that

the said disqualifications imposed should not only
have a nexus with the objects of the representative
Government but they must also be ejusdem generis
with the nature of the disqualification prescribed in
the Representation of the Peoples Act.
BU.
It is submitted that far from having a nexus with
the objects sought to be achieved by Schedule IX of the

Constitution and the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act,
1994, the nature of the disqualification prescribed in
the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, is arbitrary
and there is no nexus with the objects sought to be
achieved. It is, therefore, submitted that Section 19 (r)
(s) (t) of the Act of 1994 is void and is being ultra vires
the powers of the State Government under the Act and
is also void as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution
of the India.
72
BV.
It is submitted that every eligible voter is entitled
to contest for Panchayat Elections regardless of

educational qualifications that one possess or do not
possess.
BW.
The constitutional validity of legislation must be
judged not merely for its formal validity but be judged

with reference to the impact it has on the affected
community. In the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. UOI
[(1990) 1 SCC 614 (667) (para 13), Mukherjee, C.J.
made
statement,
viz.,
that In
judging
the
Constitutional validity of the Act, the subsequent

events, namely, how the Act has worked out, have to be
looked into. It can be supported only on the test of
direct and inevitable effect and, therefore, needs to be
explained in some subsequent decision.
BX.
That when the constitutionality of a law is
challenged
on
the
ground
that
it
infringes
fundamental right, what the Court has to consider is

the direct and inevitable effect of such law. The
arbitrary nature of the Ordinance/Amendment or any
law prescribing educational qualifications can only be
judged in the social and political context in which it
73
operates. The present Ordinance has been passed in

the context of large-scale illiteracy prevailing in the
State of Haryana and rest of the country and hence it
inevitably results in denial of equal opportunity to
contest an election.
BY.
That
the
Children's
Right
to
Free
and
Compulsory Education Act (RTE) was introduced only

in the year 2009 to fulfill the mandate of Article 21A of
the Constitution of India. Assuming that the Act is
implemented in its true letter and spirit, the children
born after 2009 who when they reached the age of 5
can
enter
the
School
free
of
cost
in
their
neighborhood. It is only when the children attain the

age of 21 will become qualified to contest the election
since
that
is
the
minimum
age
prescribed
for
contesting the election. Hence, it is in the year 2030

that such children become eligible for contesting an
election. Hence assuming that the Act is enforced at
its optimum level, a qualification of such nature will
only be viable in the year 2029.
Any attempt to
enforce it now in any given scale in the state will

render it arbitrary and hence, void.
BZ.
That while promulgating the ordinance there
was no emergency and in Dr. D.C. Wadhwa vs State
74
of Bihar, as reported in (1987) 1 SCC 378, a

Constitution Bench of this Honble Court held as
follows:
The power to promulgate an ordinance is essentially

a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation
and it cannot be allowed to be perverted to serve
political ends. It is contrary to all democratic norms
that the executive should have the power to make a
law, but in order to meet an emergent situation, this
power is conferred on the Governor and an ordinance
issued by the Governor in exercise of this power
must, therefore, of necessity be limited in point of
time. That is why it is provided that the ordinance
shall cease to operate on the expiration of six weeks
from the date of assembling of the legislature. The
Constitution-makers expected that if the provisions of
the ordinance are to be continued in force, this time
should be sufficient for the legislature to pass the
necessary Act. But if within this time the legislature
does not pass such an Act, the ordinance must come
to an end. The executive cannot continue the
provisions of the ordinance in force without going to
the legislature. The law-making function is entrusted
by the Constitution to the legislature consisting of the
representatives of the people and if the executive
were permitted to continue the provisions of an
ordinance in force by adopting the methodology of
repromulgation without submitting to the voice of the
legislature, it would be nothing short of usurpation by
the executive of the law-making function of the
legislature. The executive cannot by taking resort to
an emergency power exercisable by it only when the
legislature is not in session, take over the law-making
function of the legislature. That would be clearly
subverting the democratic process which lies at the
core of our Constitutional scheme, for then the people
75
would be governed not by the laws made by the

legislature as provided in the Constitution but by laws
made by the executive. The Government cannot
bypass the legislature and without enacting the
provisions of the ordinance into an Act of the
legislature, repromulgate the ordinance as soon as
the legislature is prorogued.
CA.
It is submitted that Article 243(O) does not
operate as bar to a Petition under Article 226

challenging
the
constitutional
validity
of
law
prescribing disqualification for the contesting election.

Article 243(O) reads as under:
243O.
Bar to interference by courts in electoral
matters notwithstanding
anything
in
this
Constitution
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies made or purporting to be made under
article 243K, shall not be called in question in any
court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented to
such authority and in such manner as is provided for
by or under any Law made by the legislature of a
State.
CB.
That the fact that an election petition can be
filed only after polling is over or after a candidate is

declared elected and what is normally called in
question by such petition is the final result, however,
the petitioners here are challenging the Constitutional
76
validity of the impugned amendment which has

violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners and
it is not an Election Petition within the meaning of
Article 243 (O).
CC.
That the power of the High Court and the
Supreme Court to exercise judicial review where the

Constitutional validity of a piece of law is in question
has been time and again laid down in various historic
judgments including L Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 (para 78), where the
Supreme Court has held that, We, therefore, hold that
the power of judicial review over legislative action
vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and in
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an
integral and essential feature of the Constitution,
constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily,
therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme
Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations
can never be ousted or excluded.
CD.
On this basis, it is submitted that the present
Petition is not an Election Petition within the

meaning of Section 243 (O)(b) and hence the petitioner
have the right to approach this Honorable Court for
the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
77
CE.
That otherwise also, the impugned Ordinance is
an action of no-application of mind by the respondentState. Therefore also, the impugned Ordinance is liable
to be quashed and set aside.
CF.
Because although the Article 243G enables the
State to make laws prescribing disqualification, it is

submitted that the said disqualifications imposed
should not only have a nexus with the objects of the
representative Government but they must also be
ejusdem generis with the nature of the disqualification
prescribed in the Representation of the Peoples Act.
Therefore, the impugned Ordinance is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
CG.
Because the impugned Ordinance will prevent
the Petitioners from their right to contest as the

impugned Ordinance creates an artificial class of
persons who are otherwise similarly situated to the
Petitioners and therefore, it is liable to be quashed and
set aside. That the voters have a fundamental right to
vote for candidates of their choice and their right
would
be
denied
by
imposing
unreasonable
disqualifications upon potential candidates.
78
CH.
Because the choice of candidates should be left
to the voters, rather than to the legislature as is

sought to be done, by disqualifying candidates who are
otherwise qualified by making artificial classification
without any nexus with the aims and objects of the
said Act.
CI. Because
the
impugned
amendment
and
disqualifications have a negative impact on SC/ST

communities and specially on women, who have been
denied the opportunity to contest as they do not
possess the required qualifications, depriving them of
representation in a democratic system inspite of being
eligible in all ways.
CJ.
Because the voters have been denied the right to
choose a candidate based on their evaluation of

competence to represent them, thereby denying the
right of the voter to freely express their views and
exercise their rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the
CK.
Because in any event, the validity of a law and
the public policy behind it must be judged not only

from the provisions but by their impact and outcome,
which
in
the
present
case
would
lead
to
the
79
disenfranchisement of a large section of society, more

particularity women.
CL.
Because the impact and outcome of the law
indicates that far from being based on public policy, it

is contrary to the declared policy of the Constitution
and its express provision of affirmative action in favour
of women.
CM.
Because the impugned Ordinance is also liable
to be declared ultra vires as the same is a malafide

action on part of the State Government to deprive the
persons from rural area and by creating artificial class
of people.
CN.
Because the impugned Ordinance is ultra vires
to the Constitution of India as it violates Article 243-F

of the Constitution of India.
CO.
That on the one hand the State Government is
providing reservation for women and other under

privileged classes whereas on the other hand several
persons are being deprived of their right to contest the
Panchayat elections.
CP.That the Petitioners crave leave of this Honble Court to
raise additional grounds at the time of hearing.
80
17.
That the main law points involved in the present writ petition
are:
i. Whether the impugned Ordinance is ultra vires / illegal /
ii.
arbitrary?
Whether the proviso to clause (aa) of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of article
14 interalia of the Constitution of India and as such is
liable
iii.
to
be
struck
down
being
ultra
vires
and
unconstitutional?
Whether the proviso to clause (t) of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of articles
14, 15, 19, 21 interalia of the Constitution of India and as
such is liable to be struck down being ultra vires and
iv.
unconstitutional?
Whether the proviso to clause (u) of Section 175 of the
impugned Ordinance (Annexure P-2) is violative of Articles
v.
unconstitutional?
Whether the proviso to clause (w) and of Section 175 of the
unconstitutional?
81
vi.
Whether the proviso to clause (v) of Section 175 of the

vii.
unconstitutional?
Whether the impugned actions of the Respondents is
arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 14 of the
viii.
Constitution of India?
Whether the impugned actions of the Respondents is
arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 21 of the
ix.
Constitution of India?
Whether the respondent
government
is
justified
in
notifying the impugned Ordinance disqualifying a majority

of voters from the panchayat elections, without there being
any data or statistical backing for the same, necessitating
x.
such action?
Whether the
respondent
government
is
justified
in
disqualifying candidates against whom charges have been

framed in a criminal case for an offence punishable with
imprisonment for not less than 10 years, in Panchayati Raj
Institutions when there is no such power for being elected
in Municipal Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the
xi.
States and the Parliament of India?

Whether the respondent government
is
justified
in
disqualifying candidates failed to pay any arears to any

Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, District Central
Cooperative Bank and District
Primary Co-operative
82
Agriculture Rural Development Bank, in Panchayati Raj

xii.

Whether the respondent government
is
justified
in
disqualifying candidates who have failed to pay any arears

of electricity bills, in Panchayati Raj Institutions when
there is no such power for being elected in Municipal
Institutions, Legislative Assemblies of the States and the
xiii.
Parliament of India?
Whether the respondent
government
is
justified
in
disqualifying candidates who have no not have a functional

toilet at their place of residence, in Panchayati Raj
18.
That the Petitioner has not filed any such or similar writ
petition either in this Honble Court or in the Honble
19.
Supreme Court of India.

That the Petitioner has no other remedy of appeal or revision
except to approach this Honble Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
83
PRAYER
It is therefore respectfully prayed that the record of the case
may be summoned and after perusal of the same, this
Honble Court may be pleased to:
a. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold

and declare Ordinance no. 5 of 2015 promulgated by
the Honble Governor, Haryana dated 14.08.2015 as
violative and ultra vires of the Constitution;
b. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold

and declare that Sub-sections (aa) and/or (t) and/or
(u) and/or (v) and/or (w)
of Section 175 of the
Haryana Panchayati Act, 1994, sought to be inserted

vide Ordinance No. 5 of 2015, as being violative of
Articles 14, 21, 40 and dehors Part IX of the
Constitution of India;
c. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold

and declare that Sub-section (aa) of Section 175 of the
84

d. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold

and declare that Sub-sections (t) of Section 175 of the
e. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold

and declare that Sub-sections (u) of Section 175 of the
f. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold
and declare that Sub-sections (v) of Section 175 of the
g. Issue appropriate writ/writs, orders, directions to hold
and declare that Sub-sections (w) of Section 175 of the
85

h.
Issue appropriate writ/writs,
orders,
directions
declaring the Notification dated 14.08.2015, issued by

the State Election Commission as void; and
i. Grant such other relief/s, including the costs of this
writ petition, as are deemed fit and necessary in the
interest of justice.
j. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this
Honble
Court
deems
fit
under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case;

k. Dispense with the issuance of advance notices upon
the Respondents
l. Exempt the Petitioner from filing certified and legible
copies of Annexures as the petitioner is not in
immediate
possession
of
certified/legible
copies/fair/unmarked/proper left hand space/double

space copies of Annexures annexed with the instant
petition. However, true typed copies and clear/legible
photocopies of the same are being annexed with the
present petition for the kind consideration of this
Honble Court.
Therefore, filing of certified/legible
copies of Annexures annexed with the instant petition

may kindly be dispensed with and true typed copies
thereof may kindly be taken on record, in the interest
of justice, equity and fair play.
m. Award the cost of the present petition in favour of the
Petitioner.
86
INTERIM PRAYER
Stay the operation of the impugned Ordinance and
orders (Annexures P-2 and P-3) and any other relevant
orders
in
the
interim
period,
during
the
period
of
adjudication of the present petition, in the interest of

Justice.
87
PETITIONER
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015
P/867/2011
MAH/5843/2011
ADVOCATES
M:9592771330/9855686442
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above writ petition from para
1 to and para are true and correct to my knowledge, information
and belief. The averments made in para
and
are based on legal
advice received and believed to be true. No Part of it is false and

nothing material has been concealed therein.
Chandigarh
Dated: 25.08.2015
PETITIONER
88
IN
THE
HIGH COURT
OF
PUNJAB
AND
HARYANA
AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015

Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF
HARYANA and Others

Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
OF
SH.
RAJENDER
MOHAN
KASHYAP S/O LATE SHIV DUTT, GENERAL
SECRETARY OF PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL
LIBERTIES,
PUNJAB
AND
CHANDIGARH
CHAPTER, RESIDING AT H.NO. 133, SECTOR
22A, CHANDIGARH,
I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That the deponent is Petitioner in the present case and is
fully conversant with the facts of the case and is therefore,
competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That the averments made in the petition are true and correct
to my knowledge, information and belief. No Part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therein.
3. That the deponent is filling the accompanying petition in
public interest and has no personal interest in the same.
Chandigarh
Dated:
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therein.
Chandigarh
Dated:
DEPONENT
89
90
Annexure P- 1
91
ANNEXURE P-2
HARYANA GOVT GAZ (EXTRA), AUG 14, 2015 (SRVN 23, 1937
SAKA)
PART II
HARYANA GOVERNMENT
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 14th August, 2015
No. Leg. 11/2015 :- The following Ordinance of the
Governor of Haryana promulgated under clause (1) of article 213 of
the Constitution of India, on the 14 th August, 2015 and is hereby
published for general information :HARYANA ORDINANCE NO. 5 OF 2015
THE
HARYANA
PANCHAYATI
RAJ
(AMENDMENT)
ORDINANCE, 2015
AN
ORDINANCE
Further To Amend The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
Promulgated by the Governor of Haryana in the sixty-sixth

Year of the Republic of India.
92
Whereas the legislature of the State of Haryana is not in

session and the governor is satisfied that the circumstances exist
which render it necessary for him to take immediate action ;
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(1) of article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Haryana hereby promulgates the following Ordinance :-
1. This Ordinance may be called the Haryana Panchayati Raj

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
2. In section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994:III.
After clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted,

namely:(aa) has not been convicted, but charges have been
framed in a criminal case for an offence, punishable with
imprisonment for not less than ten years, or;
IV.
After clause (s), the following clauses shall be inserted,

namely:(t) Fails to pay any arrears of any kind due to him to
any
Primary
Agriculture
Co-operative
Society
District Central Co-operative bank and District

Primary
Co-operative
Development Bank, or
Agriculture
Rural
93
(u) Fails to pay arrears of electricity bills, or
(v) Has not passed matriculation examination or its

equivalent
examination
from
any
recognized
institution board.
Provided that in case of a woman candidate or a
candidate
belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste,
the
minimum qualification shall be middle pass, or
(w) Fails to submits self declaration to the effect that

he has a functional toilet at his place of residence.
CHANDIGARH
THE 14TH AUGUST, 2015
PROF. KAPTAN SINGH SOLANKI,

GOVERNOR OF HARYANA.
KULDIP JAIN,
Secretary to Government, Haryana.
Law and Legislative Department.
94
TRUE COPY
ADVOCATE
95
ANNEXURE P-3
HARYANA GOVT GAZ (EXTRA) AUG, 14, 2015

(SRVN 23, 1937 SAKA)
HARYANA GOVERNMENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATS DEPARTMENT
Notification
The 14th August, 2015
No, S.O. 143/H.A. 11/1994/S. 211/2015 :- In exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of
section 211 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Haryana Act
11 of 1994), the Governor of Haryana hereby directs that the
general election of Panches, Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats
(except for Gram Panchayat Chhachhrauli, Radur, Sadhura of
district Yamunanagar, Tosham of district Bhiwani, Nissing(Rural) of
district Karnal, Berwali Nandla of district Panchkula, Jakhal
Mandi of district Fatehabad, Hassanpur of district Palwal and
Samalkha of district Kurukshetra) and members of all Panchayat
Samitis and Zila Parishad shall be held and made in the State of
Haryana by 30th September, 2015 as specified by the State Election
Commission.
RAM
NIWAS,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government
96
Haryana,
Development
Department
TRUE COPY
ADVOCATE
and
Panchayats

PUCL PIL Challenging Haryana Panchayati Raj Ordinance 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUCL PIL Challenging Haryana Panchayati Raj Ordinance 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE MATTER OF:

HARYANA & ORS

LIST OF DATES AND

CIVIL WRIT PETITION

P-5: SECC Report

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)

C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2015

HARYANA & ORS

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)

Ordinance no. 5 of 2015 titled Haryana

Haryana dated 14.08.2015

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)

C.W.P. No. 18112 of 2014

PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, Punjab and Chandigarh

HARYANA, Civil Secretariat Haryana, Sector 1,

Chandigarh, Law and Legislative Department, Government of

(ARJUN SHEORAN) (NEHA SONAWANE)

CIVIL WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER

RAJ (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2015

PROMULGATED BY THE HONBLE GOVERNOR OF

14.08.2015 AS VIOLATIVE AND

ULTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO HOLD AND

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE ORDINANCE

OF 2015 PROMULGATED BY THE HONBLE

DIRECTIONS TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT SUB-

SECTIONS (AA) AND/OR (T) AND/OR (U) AND/OR (V)

OF SECTION 175 OF THE HARYANA

PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

PANCHAYATI ACT, 1994, SOUGHT TO BE INSERTED

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 21, 40 AND DEHORS

ORDINANCE (ANNEXURES P-2) AND NOTIFICATION

ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION

That the petitioner is an organization agitating and fighting

That the present petitioner is a unit of Indias largest

governments, corporations and is completely run on small

The PUCL was formed in 1976 by Sh. Jayaprakash Narayan.

Kannabiran, Arun Shourie and numerous others. The

That PUCL India has initiated several legal interventions in

approached the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

the State of Haryana under the Protection of Human Rights

That the petitioner is acting in a bona fide manner, entirely

Rajender Mohan Kashyap through a resolution passed by

It is during its work as a human rights and civil liberties

illegal and arbitrary fashion affecting the rights of the

That the Present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015

promulgated by the Honble Governor of Haryana dated

constitution of India is being filed by the Petitioner

Scheduled Tribe, Minorities and OBC, and are permanent

Organisation represents countless citizens of India and

elections and participate in the democratic process of local

That section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994

disqualifications arising on account of such removal from office; or

(h) has directly or indirectly, by himself or, his partner share or

[(r) admits the claim against Gram Panchayat without proper

That the Respondent No. 1 vide Ordinance No.

mandatory educational qualification for eligibility to hold