1964 (3) TMI 99 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Bombay Borough Municipalities Election Rule 11(2) Upheld, Broader Candidate Eligibility

Veerappa Shiddalingappa Versus State Of Mysore And Ors.

The Court upheld the validity of Rule 11(2) of the Bombay Borough Municipalities Election Rules, 1950, in accordance with Section 11A(2) of the Act. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Rule 11(2) of the Bombay Borough Municipalities Election Rules, 1950.2. Interpretation of Sections 11 and 11A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925.3. Consistency of Rule 11(2) with Section 11A(2) of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Rule 11(2) of the Bombay Borough Municipalities Election Rules, 1950:The core issue in this case was whether Rule 11(2) of the Bombay Borough Municipalities Election Rules, 1950, which allows a person whose name is entered in the list of voters for a ward to stand for election in any ward of the Municipal Borough, is valid. The petitioners argued that their nominations were valid under Rule 11(2), while the respondents contended that this rule conflicted with Section 11A(2) of the Act.2. Interpretation of Sections 11 and 11A of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925:Section 11(1) of the Act states that the electoral roll of the Bombay Legislative Assembly for the part of the constituency included in a ward shall be deemed the list of voters for that ward. Section 11A(1) provides that every person whose name is in the list of voters shall be qualified to vote in that ward. Section 11A(2) states that every person whose name is in the list of voters shall be qualified to be elected at the election for any ward of the Municipal Borough. The key phrases here are 'qualified to be elected at the election for any ward of the Municipal Borough' and 'every person whose name is in the list of voters.'3. Consistency of Rule 11(2) with Section 11A(2) of the Act:The Court examined whether Rule 11(2) conflicted with Section 11A(2). The term 'any ward' was interpreted to mean 'every ward,' suggesting that a person listed as a voter in any ward could stand for election in any ward of the Municipal Borough. The Court found that the language of Section 11A(2) supported this interpretation, as it did not restrict a candidate to the ward in which they were registered as a voter.Judgment Analysis:Majority Opinion:The majority held that Rule 11(2) is valid. They reasoned that the rule is consistent with Section 11A(2) of the Act, which allows a person listed as a voter in any ward to stand for election in any ward. They emphasized that the word 'any' connotes wide generality and should be interpreted to mean 'every.' The majority also noted that the Legislature's use of different language in Sections 11A(1) and 11A(2) indicated a deliberate choice to allow broader eligibility for candidates. They concluded that the rule did not conflict with the Act and should be upheld as valid.Dissenting Opinion:The dissenting judge disagreed, arguing that Rule 11(2) is invalid as it conflicts with the scheme of the Act. He emphasized that each ward is a separate electoral area, and the right to be elected should be limited to the ward in which a person is registered as a voter. He interpreted 'any ward' to mean 'a given ward' or 'a ward for the time being taken up for consideration,' not 'every other ward.' He argued that the rule-making power under Section 10 of the Act did not extend to creating rules inconsistent with the Act's scheme. He concluded that Rule 11(2) should be struck down as ultra vires.Conclusion:The majority opinion prevailed, and the Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that Rule 11(2) of the Rules framed under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act is a valid rule. The dissenting opinion, however, highlighted significant concerns about the rule's consistency with the Act's scheme, emphasizing the need for a clear legislative framework to avoid such conflicts.