HC annuls nominated councillors’ voting right

Chandigarh, August 23

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today allowed a petition claiming that the voting right to nominated councillors in the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh would result in suppressing the will of the electorate. With this, the voting right of nominated councillors stands annulled.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Surinder Singh Saron and Justice Avneesh Jhingan passed the order on the petition, filed in public interest by councillor Satinder Singh through counsel Baltej Singh Sidhu. He had referred to Section 4(3) (ii) of the Municipal Corporation Act before asserting that the nominated members were to be nominated by the government.

“Nominated members are not elected members. They have not taken the mandate of the electorate. To give the right to vote in the meeting of the Municipal Corporation amounts to suppressing the will of the electorate,” Sidhu had argued.

He had added that the right to exercise the vote by the nominated members tilted the balance against the wishes of the electorate. It was not only undemocratic, but prone to misuse also “because it cannot be expected from a nominated person to go against the will of his nominator”.

Sidhu said the issue before the court was regarding the nominated members’ right to vote in the Municipal Corporation meetings. Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, as extended to Chandigarh, gave the voting right to nine members to be nominated by the government. On the other hand, Article 243 R of the Constitution did not give the voting right to the nominated members. As such, the provisions were ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Referring further to the provisions of the Constitution, the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court (supra), Sidhu said: “It was abundantly clear that there was no intention of the Constitution by way of the 74th Amendment to give the right to vote to the nominated members”.

The petitioner, being an elected member of the Municipal Corporation, studied the law and brought it to the notice of the respondents and asked them to remove the anomaly. The petitioner also received a response from the Prime Minister’s Office. He was told that his representation had been sent to the quarters concerned for appropriate action. “Erroneously, it was sent to the Government of Punjab, he said.

The petitioner added that the substantial question of law involved in the present writ petition was whether the provisions of Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, giving the voting right to the nominated members was ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of  Article 243 R of the Constitution.  — TNS