“Neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right… both are purely statutory rights and can be regulated by law…These rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to the extent conferred by statute,” the verdict dated April 10, authored by Justice Mahadevan said, underscoring that eligibility conditions for contesting elections do not violate constitutional guarantees.
The Supreme Court examined whether such norms were legally sustainable and whether the high court was justified in invoking its writ jurisdiction. (Image enhanced using AI)
High court’s approach set aside
The matter was considered by the court, which also examined whether the Rajasthan High Court was justified in striking down these provisions and entertaining writ petitions in a dispute concerning the internal governance and electoral process of cooperative societies.
The Supreme Court examined whether such norms were legally sustainable and whether the high court was justified in invoking its writ jurisdiction.
However, the Supreme Court found the high court’s reasoning to be flawed, observing that the impugned bye-laws merely prescribed eligibility conditions and did not amount to disqualifications or infringe any constitutional rights.
While the right to vote enables a member to exercise franchise in accordance with the statutory scheme, the right to contest an election or to be elected is a distinct and additional right which may legitimately be made subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions, and disqualifications.
Story continues below this ad
Writ jurisdiction not maintainable
- A key aspect of the ruling was the court’s finding that the high court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions in the first place.
- The Supreme Court noted that cooperative societies are not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and do not ordinarily discharge public functions.
- As such, disputes relating to their internal governance, particularly elections do not generally warrant interference under Article 226.
- The Supreme Court further emphasized that the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving such disputes, including recourse to the Registrar and appellate forums, which should have been exhausted.
Voting & Contesting Elections Are Not Fundamental Rights — SC Reiterates Settled Law
"Neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right… both are purely statutory rights and can be regulated by law. These rights exist only to the extent conferred by statute."
— Justice R Mahadevan, Supreme Court | April 10, 2025
TWO DISTINCT RIGHTS — TWO DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS
🗳️ Right to Vote
☑️
Statutory — Not Fundamental
Enables a member to exercise franchise within the statutory scheme. Created and governed entirely by law — exists only to the extent Parliament or state legislatures confer it. Can be regulated, conditioned, or restricted by statute.
Cannot be claimed as a constitutional entitlement under Part III
🏛️ Right to Contest
📋
Separate Right — Stricter Conditions
A distinct and additional right beyond the right to vote. May legitimately be subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions, and disqualifications. SC upheld minimum milk supply and operational continuity as valid eligibility norms for cooperative elections.
Eligibility conditions ≠ unconstitutional disqualifications
Context: Rajasthan HC struck down bye-laws of District Milk Producers' Cooperative Unions requiring minimum milk supply & operational continuity for election candidates. SC set aside both the 2015 single judge and 2022 division bench orders — holding the conditions were valid eligibility criteria, not unconstitutional disqualifications.
📌 Eligibility vs Disqualification — The Key Distinction
Eligibility conditions = threshold requirements ensuring only active, contributing members govern cooperative bodies. Disqualifications = legal bars imposed due to specific negative factors. Only the latter raise serious constitutional concerns — the former are perfectly valid regulatory tools.
VERDICT
HC orders set aside. Bye-laws restored. SC also held that cooperative societies are not "State" under Article 12 — writ petitions under Article 226 were not maintainable. Statutory remedies under Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act should have been exhausted first.
Eligibility vs disqualification
Clarifying an important legal distinction, the top court held that the impugned provisions were in the nature of eligibility criteria and not disqualifications.
While disqualifications impose a legal bar due to specified negative factors, eligibility conditions are threshold requirements designed to ensure that only active and contributing members participate in the governance of cooperative bodies.
The bench observed that conditions like minimum milk supply or functional continuity are reasonable and aligned with the objective of strengthening the cooperative framework by promoting accountability and efficiency.
Background
The case arises from a dispute over election rules governing District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan. These unions function within a three-tier dairy co-operative structure under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, where primary village-level societies form the base and participate in the management of district unions through elected representatives.
Story continues below this ad
To regulate elections to the boards of these unions, certain bye-laws were framed prescribing eligibility conditions for candidates, such as minimum milk supply for a specified number of days, minimum quantity of supply, functional status of the society, and audit classification standards.
Aggrieved by these conditions, several primary co-operative societies challenged the validity of the bye-laws before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that they imposed unreasonable restrictions and were ultra vires the parent statute.
In 2015, a Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and struck down the impugned bye-laws, holding them inconsistent with the Act, while protecting elections already conducted.
This decision was later affirmed by a division bench in 2022. Following these rulings, the Registrar initiated steps to amend the bye-laws, prompting the present appellants chairpersons of various district milk unions, who were not parties before the high court but claimed to be directly affected to approach the Supreme Court.
Story continues below this ad
The appeal thus centers on the legality of the impugned bye-laws, the maintainability of the writ petitions, and the broader question of regulating eligibility to contest elections within co-operative societies.
Statutory nature of electoral rights
Reaffirming settled law, the apex court stressed that both the right to vote and the right to contest elections are creations of statute and not inherent or fundamental rights.
It drew a clear distinction between the two, noting that while the right to vote enables participation in the electoral process, the right to contest is a separate right that can be subject to stricter regulatory conditions.
The Supreme Court examined whether such norms were legally sustainable and whether the high court was justified in invoking its writ jurisdiction. (Image enhanced using AI)