Court Rules Electoral Disqualification for Candidates Facing Serious Charges Is Constitutionally Valid, Emphasizing Prevention of Criminalization in Local Politics
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 24(iii) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which disqualifies a candidate from contesting municipal elections if a competent court has taken cognizance and framed charges against the person for an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more, even before conviction.
The case arose when the petitioner, Budh Dan, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his nomination paper for the municipal election from Ward No.6, Nagar Palika Mathania, District Jodhpur. The petitioner was disqualified under Section 24(iii) because he was facing criminal trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, with cognizance taken and charges framed by the competent court on June 14, 2024.
The petitioner contended that disqualification at the pre-conviction stage was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India. He argued that the provision discriminated between an under-trial accused and a convicted person, placing the former in a more onerous position despite the presumption of innocence. The petitioner also challenged the provision's compatibility with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and contended the disqualification was disproportionate and violated fundamental rights.
However, the State defended the provision, emphasizing that the right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental one, and the legislature enjoys competence under Article 243V of the Constitution to prescribe qualifications and disqualifications for municipal elections. The State argued that Section 24(iii) does not adjudicate guilt but merely sets eligibility criteria based on judicial scrutiny at the cognizance and charge framing stages, thus serving a legitimate legislative objective to prevent criminalization in local governance.
After thorough examination, the Court reaffirmed the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to legislative enactments unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions. The Court noted that the right to contest elections is neither a common law nor fundamental right but a statutory one, subject to reasonable restrictions.
The Court also relied on precedent decisions such as Shiv Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which had upheld the constitutionality of similar provisions in predecessor Acts. It emphasized that once the constitutionality of pari materia provisions has been judicially upheld, the same cannot be reopened on fresh grounds, to maintain certainty of law and judicial discipline.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that municipal election laws must mirror disqualification criteria under the Representation of the People Act applicable to parliamentary elections, observing that laws enacted by different legislatures for distinct constitutional fields cannot be compared for testing discrimination under Article 14. Local self-government institutions constitute a separate constitutional category warranting distinct electoral standards.
The Court also distinguished between Section 24(iii), which operates at the pre-conviction stage based on judicial scrutiny of serious offences, and Section 24(i), which applies post-conviction. The legislature's choice to treat these stages differently was held to be rational and valid.
Consequently, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and upheld the rejection of his nomination paper. However, the Court clarified that this decision would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the election result through the appropriate election petition process after the election.
This judgment reinforces the legislative intent to safeguard democratic institutions from criminal influence by imposing electoral disqualifications at the stage where serious criminal charges have been judicially recognized, thereby preserving public confidence and integrity in local self-governance.
Bottom Line:
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, Section 24(iii) - Disqualification from contesting municipal election at pre-conviction stage, where competent court has taken cognizance and framed charges for offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more, is constitutionally valid - Right to contest election is statutory, not fundamental - Provision aims to prevent criminalization of politics and preserve integrity of local self-government institutions - Constitutionality of pari materia predecessor provision having already been upheld, challenge cannot be reopened on fresh grounds.
Statutory provision(s):
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 Section 24(iii), Sections 24(i), Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 Rule 13(1)(4), Rule 12(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), Indian Penal Code Sections 420, 120B, Constitution of India Articles 14, 21, 243V, Representation of the People Act, 1951 Section 8(3)
Budh Dan v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992878
