NRI Sabha president’s election not restricted to ex-NRIs, rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the NRI Sabha’s constitution does not restrict the eligibility for its president’s post exclusively to ex-NRIs. The court clarified that the constitution’s clause stating an “ex-NRI shall be eligible to stand for election” does not imply that only ex-NRIs can contest.

The ruling came as Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj of the high court dismissed a writ petition filed by Joga Singh and another petitioner challenging the election of Parvinder Kaur as NRI Sabha president. Among other things, they alleged that the entire election was carried out in complete contravention of the Sabha bye-laws. It was added that only an ex-NRI was eligible to contest for the post. A person was required to stay in India for at least nine months for being an ex-NRI.

Appearing on the State’s behalf before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench, Additional Advocate-General Gagneshwar Walia submitted the Sabha president’s elections could not be challenged by means of a writ petition as disputed questions of fact would be involved. Walia added the argument that only an ex-NRI could contest the election, too, was misconceived

Taking up the matter, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the constitution’s language nowhere specified that only an ex-NRI was eligible to stand for the election. As such, the petitioner’s argument that a person must necessarily be an ex-NRI to contest for the president’s post “did not flow from an objective and meaningful reading of the clause”.

Justice Bhardwaj added incorporation of a restriction or a limitation had to be specific and not by way of a remote inference. There was no provision in the NRI Sabha’s constitution so as to oust a nonresident Indian from being eligible to contest for the president’s post. “If the intent would have been to disallow an NRI from contesting for president, such an expression or intent would have been specifically reflected in the constitution”.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the court did not find the existence of sufficient prima-facie grounds calling for interference by the court. The petitioners if so advised could take recourse to alternative remedies to establish their claim in accordance with law.