Court upholds Company Secretaries Regulations 1982 & Election Rules 2006 as constitutional and not violating fundamental rights.

The court upheld Regulation 114 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982, and Rule 7 of the Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006, finding them constitutional and not violative of fundamental rights. The amendments restricting eligibility to stand for election to the Council to only Fellow Members were deemed reasonable based on the legislative intent and differentiation between Associate and Fellow Members. The petition challenging the regulations was dismissed for lack of merit, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to Regulation 114 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982.
2. Challenge to Rule 7 of the Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006.
3. Alleged discrimination against Associate Members in standing for election to the Council.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Regulation 114 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982:
The petitioners sought to quash Regulation 114 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982, arguing it was arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory. Regulation 114(1) states that elections to the Regional Councils shall be held by the Council and the Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006 shall apply to elections to the Regional Councils mutatis mutandis. The amendment dated 26.07.2010 to Regulation 114(1) made only Fellow Members eligible to stand for election to the Regional Councils, excluding Associate Members. The court found that the amendment was consistent with the legislative intent of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, which differentiates between Associate and Fellow Members based on experience and qualifications. The court held that the classification between Fellow and Associate Members is reasonable and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Challenge to Rule 7 of the Company Secretaries (Election to the Council) Rules, 2006:
Rule 7 specifies that only a Fellow Member on the first day of April of the financial year in which an election is to take place is eligible to stand for election to the Council. The petitioners contended that this rule was discriminatory as it barred Associate Members from contesting elections. The court reiterated that the right to contest an election is a statutory right subject to qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by the statute. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the right to vote or to contest elections is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right but a purely statutory right governed by the statute, rules, or regulations. The court upheld Rule 7, stating that it does not violate the principles of equality under Article 14, as the classification between Fellow and Associate Members is based on reasonable criteria.

3. Alleged Discrimination Against Associate Members:
The petitioners argued that the exclusion of Associate Members from contesting elections to the Regional Councils was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court noted that Associate and Fellow Members belong to two different classes, with Fellow Members being more experienced and knowledgeable. The court held that the differentiation between these two classes is reasonable and justified, given the legislative intent and the structure of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The court also pointed out that the Associate Members' right to contest elections is not absolute and can be restricted by statutory provisions. The court concluded that the impugned provisions do not violate the constitutional principles of equality and are not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish that Regulation 114(1) and Rule 7 were unconstitutional or violative of their fundamental rights. The court upheld the amendments and the statutory provisions that differentiate between Associate and Fellow Members, affirming that such classifications are reasonable and in line with the legislative intent of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed without any order as to costs.

---