Jodhpur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 24(iii) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which disqualifies a person from contesting municipal elections when a competent court has taken cognizance and framed charges against them for an offence punishable with five years or more imprisonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Munnuri Laxman dismissed the challenge to the provision, holding that the restriction is aimed at preventing criminalisation of politics and preserving the integrity of local democratic institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose after the nomination of a candidate seeking to contest for Nagar Palika Mathania, Jodhpur, was rejected. The petitioner was facing trial in connection with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, with cognizance taken and charges framed in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He challenged Section 24(iii), arguing that it unfairly disqualified an accused person even before conviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal question before the court was \u201cWhether Section 24(iii) of the Rules of 2009 provides for disqualification of a person, who is under-trial before the competent court, which has taken cognizance and framed charges for an offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench held that the right to vote or contest an election is not a fundamental right but a statutory right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed \u201cIt is well established tenet of jurisprudence that the right to vote are to stand as candidate for election is neither a common law nor a fundamental right rather it is creature of statute and must remain subject to statutory limitation and eligibility requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that the disqualification does not operate merely because an FIR has been registered or an allegation has been made. It applies only after three conditions are satisfied the competent court has taken cognizance, charges have been framed, and the offence is punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that Section 24(iii) is intended to ensure that persons facing serious criminal charges do not occupy elected public office and that the provision has a rational connection with the objective of maintaining public confidence and integrity in local democratic institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rejecting the argument that the provision violates Articles 14 and 21, the Bench held that the classification is based on objective and identifiable criteria, the provision was therefore held neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench further noted that the constitutional validity of similar provisions had already been upheld in earlier decisions including Shiv Ram, Narayan Lal and Yogendra Nandwana. Accordingly, the present challenge could not reopen an issue that had already been settled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Court noted that \u201cThe Constitutional provision once upheld is not opened to challenge as a new ground.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also rejected the comparison with disqualifications applicable to convicted persons under Section 24(i), holding that the two provisions operate at different stages of criminal proceedings and serve distinct legislative purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court accordingly dismissed and further held that the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 24(iii) lack merit<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Budh Dan had challenged Section 24(iii), arguing that disqualifying an under-trial candidate was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21; HC holds that pendency of serious criminal trial attracts statutory disqualification. Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 24(iii) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which disqualifies a person from … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[3301,2915,3702,472,3696,3699,3401,3694,3698,659,43,3693,3703,3697,3700,3695,3701],"class_list":["post-9885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-article-fourteen","tag-article-twenty-one","tag-constitutional-validity","tag-criminal-trial","tag-criminalisation-of-politics","tag-election-disqualification","tag-municipal-election","tag-nagar-palika-mathania","tag-nomination-rejection","tag-rajasthan-hc","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-municipalities-act-2009","tag-right-to-contest-elections","tag-section-24iii","tag-serious-criminal-offences","tag-statutory-right","tag-undertrial-candidate"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9885"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9885\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9887,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9885\/revisions\/9887"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Right to Contest Election Is Statutory, Not Fundamental<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Provision Targets Criminalisation of Politics<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Section 24(iii) with Section 24(i) stands on different footing<\/h4>\n\n\n\n