The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the rights to vote and to contest elections are not fundamental rights but statutory ones that can be regulated by law, while overturning a ruling by the Rajasthan High Court which had invalidated certain eligibility conditions for cooperative society elections.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal concerning bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Cooperative Unions in Rajasthan. These rules required candidates contesting the managing committee elections to meet criteria such as minimum milk supply and continuity in operations.
In the judgment dated April 10, authored by Justice Mahadevan, the court stated that both the right to vote and the right to contest elections are purely statutory in nature and exist only within the framework defined by legislation. It held that prescribing eligibility conditions for candidates does not violate constitutional guarantees, Indian Express reported.
The court examined whether the high court was justified in striking down these provisions and in entertaining writ petitions related to the internal functioning and electoral processes of cooperative societies.
It found the high court’s reasoning to be flawed, observing that the challenged bye-laws merely laid down eligibility requirements rather than imposing disqualifications or infringing constitutional rights.
The bench clarified that while the right to vote allows members to participate in elections as per statutory provisions, the right to contest is a separate and additional entitlement that can legitimately be subject to qualifications, eligibility norms, and even disqualifications.
On the issue of maintainability, the court held that the high court should not have entertained the writ petitions in the first place. It noted that cooperative societies do not fall under the definition of “State” under Article 12 and generally do not perform public functions, meaning disputes related to their internal governance and elections typically do not warrant intervention under Article 226.
The Supreme Court further pointed out that the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act already provides a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism, including recourse to the Registrar and appellate authorities, which should have been utilised.
Clarifying the distinction between eligibility and disqualification, the court said that the provisions in question were eligibility criteria—intended as threshold requirements to ensure active participation—rather than disqualifications, which impose legal bars based on negative factors. It added that conditions such as minimum milk supply and operational continuity were reasonable and aligned with the objective of strengthening accountability and efficiency within cooperative institutions.