This article is written by Shivani. A. This is an exhaustive article analysing the case of Javed v. State of Haryana. This case is a landmark judgement pertaining to the validity of certain provisions of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. This article provides the brief facts of the case, the issues involved, the judgement of the case, and the rationale behind the judgement. It also deals with the important provisions of the law as well as case laws referred by the judges while delivering the judgement.

Introduction 

One of the major impediments to the development of India in economic as well as social aspects is its population. India is ranked first in the world in terms of population. The increase in the number of people while the resources of the country remain constant has led to scarcity, which has led to the accumulation of resources only among a certain group of people. This is the reason for the economic divide between the rich and the poor in India. To overcome such a divide, it is essential to implement policies to keep a check on the population at the grass-roots level. A step in this direction was taken by the government of Haryana when the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was enacted by the government. However, the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of Javed & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2003), as the petitioners contended that the provision that was provided in the Act, which disqualified candidates from contesting elections if they had more than two children, was invalid and unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court delivered a far-reaching and impactful judgement by upholding the validity of the Act in the national interest.

Details of Javed v. State of Haryana (2003)

Case name: Javed & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Download Now

Case number: Writ Petition (civil)  302 of 2001

Equivalent Citations: AIR 2003 SC 3057

Act involved: Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Important provisions: Article 14, Article 25, Article 21, Article 51A, Article 243G, Article 246  of the Constitution of India, Section 21, Section 175(1)(q), Section 177(1) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Court: Supreme Court 

Bench: Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice Ashik Bhan, and Justice Arun Kumar

Petitioners: Javed

Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.

Judgement Date: 30th July 2003

Facts of Javed v. State of Haryana (2003)

In this case, the petitioner challenged the validity of Section 175(1)(q) and Section 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The provisions that were challenged by the petitioner are stated as follows:

Section 175(1)(q) of the Act states that a person cannot become or remain a Sarpanch, a panch of a Gram Panchayat, or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad if he has two or more children living at the time of contesting for elections. Section 177(1) of the Act provides an exception to it. It states that the disqualification of persons shall commence after a period of one year from the commencement of the Act.  

If a person has more than two children, then he will not be disqualified until the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Act. Even if a person is not disqualified from elections at the date of elections but later incurs disqualification by giving birth to a child after the commencement of the Act, then the person is disqualified from holding the office. The petitioner therefore filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, contending the validity of these sections. 

Issues raised 

  1. Whether Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, are constitutional?
  2. Whether the provisions of the Act were violative of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution? 
  3. Whether the disqualification from contesting the election or terminating the service during the tenure does not serve the purpose of popularising the family planning programme, which is sought by the legislation.

Arguments of the parties 

Arguments of the petitioner 

The contentions raised by the petitioner are as follows:

  • It was argued by the petitioners that the provisions of the Act were inherently arbitrary and hence violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • The impugned provisions had failed to serve the purpose for which the legislation was drafted. The provision is discriminatory in nature.
  • The petitioner also contended that the provisions were against Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • Further, the petitioner also claimed that in the Muslim community, a man is permitted to marry four women. Hence, the impugned provisions were against Article 25 of the Constitution as well, as they intruded upon the religious freedom of Muslims. 

Arguments of the respondent 

The contentions of the respondents are as follows: 

  • The respondents contended that the impugned provisions were within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • They claimed that the provisions satisfied the test of reasonability under Article 14, as there was a well defined classification between people who had less than two children and those who had more than two children. Therefore, the classification as per the respondents was reasonable and not arbitrary, thereby bringing it under the purview of Article 14.
  • The respondents also argued that the impugned provisions were drafted as a policy decision by the executive for the effective implementation of family planning programmes. Therefore, the respondents claimed that the interference of the judiciary in this policy decision would lead to a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
  • Also, the respondents relied on Article 243G, which provides that Gram Panchayats may be entrusted with the powers to implement schemes for economic development and social justice, including those in relation to matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. Further, entries 24 and 25 of the Eleventh Schedule specify family welfare and women and child development, respectively. Therefore, the respondents contended that the provisions were constitutional.

Laws and precedents discussed in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003)

Important laws

Article 14 of the Constitution

This Article deals with the right to equality for a person. It states that no person living within the territory of India should be denied equality before the law by the state. Also, all persons within the state are entitled to equal protection of laws by the state.

Article 25 of the Constitution 

This Article confers the right to freedom of religion upon all persons. It states that all persons are free to profess, practice, and propagate the religion of their choice. However, this right to freedom of religion is subject to restrictions pertaining to public order, morality, and health. The Article also states that this right is subject to the other provisions mentioned in Part 3 of the Constitution.

Article 51A of the Constitution

This Article deals with the fundamental duties that should be followed by all citizens of India. However, this Article is not enforceable in a court of law.

Article 136 of the Constitution

This Article states that the Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence, or order of any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Article 243G of the Constitution

This Article states the powers and responsibilities of panchayats. The functions of the Panchayat as per the article are as follows:

  • The panchayats are supposed to prepare policies and plans to promote economic development and social justice.
  • The panchayats are also expected to implement the policies and plans that are entrusted to them, including those pertaining to the Eleventh Schedule.

Article 246 of the Constitution

This Article provides for three kinds of lists. It provides information on the subjects on which the laws are to be exclusively made by the central government, exclusively by the state governments, and some subjects on which both the central government as well as the states have the authority to make laws.

  • Union list: The subjects mentioned under List 1 of the Seventh Schedule. The Parliament had exclusive authority to make laws pertaining to the subjects mentioned in this list.
  • State list: The subjects mentioned under List 2 of the Seventh Schedule. The Legislature of States has exclusive powers to make laws pertaining to subjects mentioned in this list.
  • Concurrent list: The subjects mentioned under List 3 of the Seventh Schedule. Both the Parliament and the legislature of states have the power to make laws pertaining to these subjects.

Cases relied on by the court

Sakhawat Ali v. The State of Orissa (1954)

Facts

In this case, the appellant had filed his nomination paper for municipal elections. However, his nomination was rejected on the ground that the appellant was a legal practitioner under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.

Issues

Whether such disqualification amounted to a violation of the fundamental rights of the appellant under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Judgement

It was held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the impugned provision did not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court observed that there was no fundamental right to contest an election. The only fundamental right involved here is the right of the appellant to practise law under Article 19(1)(g), and even that right is not violated by the provision as it was a reasonable condition imposed by the provision. If he wants to contest the election, it is reasonable for him to divest himself from the case against the municipality, and then he can contest the elections without any restriction.

Badruddin v. Aisha Begum (1956)

Facts

In this case, Aisha Begum filed an application before the court for maintenance from her husband Badruddin. The plaintiff, Aisha Begum, claimed that she lived with her husband for 6 years, after which he left her because she was sick and married another woman. Therefore, she claimed that she was entitled to receive maintenance from her husband. However, Badruddin refused to pay maintenance and offered to keep her in his house. He also argued that it was the fundamental right of a Muslim man to marry four wives. 

Issues

Whether a Muslim man’s right to marry four women is a fundamental right under Article 25?

Judgement

In this case, the Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of Muslim personal law, which allowed Muslim men to have as many as four wives. However, the court also observed that, though it was allowed in the Muslim religion to have more than one wife, it was safe to conclude that having more than one wife was not a part of the religion and was not mandatory.  

M.Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India (1994)

Facts

In this case, the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, was questioned. This Act enabled the central government to have the right, title, and interest over certain places in Ayodhya, and if anybody wanted to offer Namaz in these areas, they first had to acquire permission from the central government.

Issues

Whether the acquisition of Masjid land by the government violated Article 25 of the Constitution.

Judgement

It was held by the Supreme Court that the Act was constitutional, and only Section 4(3) of the Act was held unconstitutional. Even with the protection of Article 25, religious places like temples, mosques, etc. can be acquired by the state using its sovereign power of acquisition. It was also observed by the court that even if a practice is considered a religious practice, it is not necessary; it needs to be protected under Article 25. For a religious practice to be protected under Article 25, it needs to form an integral part of the religion.

L.N. Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change v. State of Bihar (1988)

Facts

In this case, the government of Bihar sought to implement a policy of nationalising educational institutes in a phased manner. As a result, the government took over the L.N. Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social Change and terminated the service of Dr. Jagadanand Jha, who was the Registrar of the Institute. Therefore, the constitutional validity of such a policy was questioned by the Institute as well as by Dr. Jagadanand.

Issues

Whether the implementation of a policy in a phased manner is arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.  

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that there was no violation of Article 14, and it was valid to implement policies in a phased manner. Just because all the institutions were not taken over at the same time and merely because the policy was implemented starting with one institution only, the institution cannot claim that the policy was discriminatory and violated Article 14. 

Judgement in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003)

The Supreme Court held that the Haryana government was not wrong in choosing a policy to keep a check on and control the population of the state. They stated that this was done by the state for the development of the nation and that the provisions were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It was held that the impugned provisions had a nexus with the objective that was sought to be achieved by the Act and were hence valid. The court further held that the disqualification of candidates from contesting elections based on the number of children they had did not affect their fundamental rights, as the policy was formulated keeping in mind the national interest. 

Rationale behind the judgement 

1. Whether the classification made by the Act was arbitrary and did not serve the purpose for which the Act was enacted. 

Basically, the court had to check if the impugned legislation violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court observed that, though Article 14 forbade discrimination, reasonable classification was permitted. To check if the classification is reasonable or not, two conditions need to be satisfied:

  • The classification should be based on intelligible differentia, that is, something that distinguishes a person or thing from others belonging to the same group.
  • Such differentia must have a rational nexus to the object that is sought to be received from the statute.

Therefore, in the instant case, it can clearly be observed that the classification between candidates having two children and more than two children can be considered valid because it satisfies the test of intelligible differentia as it clearly distinguishes one from the other. Further, Section 21 of the Act states about the implementation of family welfare programmes. The state argues that the term ‘family welfare’ includes ‘family planning’ as well and therefore serves the purpose and object of the Act.

Thus, the court held that the disqualification of candidates has a nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved by the Act. It was consistent with the policies of family welfare and socio-economic development sought to be achieved by the state, and hence it is said to be valid.

2. Whether the disqualification can be considered discrimination just because no other states have such provisions.

The petitioners in the instant case argued that the provisions were discriminatory in nature, as no other state other than Haryana had such a law. However, Part XI of the Constitution confers power on the parliament as well as the legislatures of any of the states to make laws with respect to matters under Article 246 of the Constitution read with the Seventh Schedule. 

The court also relied upon the case of State of M.P. v. G.C. Mandawar (1954), in which it was held that two laws that were enacted by two different governments cannot be read in conjunction nor can they be compared with each other to find out if they are discriminatory in nature. However, it was also held that Article 14 doesn’t authorise legislation to be struck down just because another state doesn’t have the same law. This is because Article 14 cannot be applied in situations where the sources of authority for two statutes are different. The court thus held that the disqualification does not amount to discrimination merely because no other states have such laws.

3. Whether the disqualification of candidates from taking part in an election is equated to a violation of fundamental rights. 

The right to contest elections is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right; it is only a statutory right. However, Part IX of the Constitution confers the right upon the people to contest panchayat elections, and therefore, it is a constitutional right and cannot be equated to fundamental rights. The court relied upon the cases of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952), and Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh (1954), in which it was held by the court that the right to elect is neither a fundamental nor a common law right. 

The court therefore quashed the contention of the petitioners that the impugned provisions violated the fundamental right to contest in panchayat elections and held that there was no violation of fundamental rights as the right to contest in elections was not a fundamental right. 

4. Whether the disqualification as stated under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners contended that the provisions violated their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied upon the cases of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980), in which it was held that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty emanating from Article 21 should be interpreted in such a way so as to include all the rights that make up the personal liberty of a person, including the right to procreate as many children as he wants. 

However, the court stated that the fundamental rights must be read along with the fundamental duties mentioned in Article 51A of the Constitution and also that Article 51A emphasises the need to keep a check on population. Therefore, the court held that there was a need to frame policies to keep a check on population and also quashed the contention of the petitioners that the Act violated Article 21 of the Constitution. 

5. Whether the disqualification as stated under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act violates Article 25 of the Constitution.

The petitioners contended that the provisions of the Act were unconstitutional and violated Article 25 of the Constitution. They contended that the provisions of the Act discriminated against Muslims, as the personal law of Muslims permits them to marry four women. They also argued that the provisions led to a lot of problems in rural areas as couples who had more than two children and wanted to contest for elections started giving up their children for adoption. They further argued that these provisions would lead to problems in cases of triplets or if twins are born on the second pregnancy. 

However, the court set aside the contentions of the petitioners and held that the examples quoted by the petitioners were mere hypothetical scenarios, and such exceptions could neither be considered a rule nor render any rule irrelevant. The court also held that even though the personal law of Muslims grants them permission to marry four wives, it does not mandate the same. It is not mentioned in any statute that a Muslim man is not supposed to marry less than four women or that it is mandatory for him to procreate a child from each and every wife in cases of bigamy or polygamy. Therefore, the court held that whenever there is a conflict between personal law and statutory law, the statutory law should prevail over the personal law of the parties. Thus, the court held that the Act was not violative of Article 25.

Conclusion 

In analysis, the court held that the impugned provisions, Section 175(1)(q) and 177(1), are valid and constitutional and do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. This is because the classification passes the twin test of reasonability (intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object sought by the Act) under Article 14 of the Constitution. 

Also, the provisions do not violate Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution. The court agreed that the Act does make it difficult for Muslims to contest in elections as they are allowed to have four wives by their religion; however, the court held that Article 25 only protects the integral aspects of a religion and polygamy is not an integral aspect, and as a result, the government can make laws to regulate such practices. 

The judgement is therefore of immense significance, especially during the current times when the population of India is significantly increasing. It serves as a reminder to both the central and state governments to frame policies and rules to keep a check on the population with the intent of ensuring the welfare and well-being of society. The contours of this judgement should be made widely applicable, not only in relation to elections but in other spheres as well. The power to take measures to promote social welfare has been conferred upon the government by the Constitution itself. Thus, the government must take measures to ensure that the population of the country is under control, the basic needs of the people, such as food, shelter, healthcare, and sanitation, are fulfilled, and these necessities must be made accessible to all. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, unconstitutional?

No, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, is not unconstitutional. The validity of some of the provisions of the Act was challenged in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana. However, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Act was constitutional and was enacted by the legislature to keep a check on the population with the intent of ensuring societal well-being. 

What is the significance of the case of Javed v. State of Haryana?

The Supreme Court in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana upheld the validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The court held that the disqualifications for contesting in elections laid down by Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Act were constitutional as they were in line with the objective of the Act, that is, to control the population of the country. Further, the court also held that the right to contest elections was not a fundamental right.

Is there any other case that supports the judgement laid down in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana?

In the case of Rajbala v. State of Province of Haryana and others (2015), the constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, was upheld. The judges in this case, referred to the case of Javed v. State of Haryana while delivering the judgement. It was also held by the bench that the “option to vote” and the “option to contest” are not fundamental rights; rather, they are merely constitutional rights conferred upon the citizens. 

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here