Educational Qualification Not Essential Criterion For Getting Elected; Mere Irregularity In Its Declaration By Candidate Does Not Vitiate Election: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court held that educational qualification is not an essential criterion for a candidate for getting elected.
Therefore, it cannot be said that even if there was some irregularity in the declaration regarding educational qualification, the same would be regarded as “improper acceptance of any nomination” to vitiate his election itself, the court said,
The petitioner, a voter in the State of West Bengal, challenged the election of a candidate to the West Bengal Assembly in the 2021 elections. The primary issue raised was whether he misrepresented his educational qualification during the election.
A Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held, “In a country like ours, where the vast majority of the people are uneducated if not illiterate, it is debatable whether educational qualification per se can be a test for the legitimacy of candidature of a person. Let it be understood clearly that this is not to denigrate or alleviate the intrinsic worth of education or the essential requirement of education for a country to flourish and for an individual to stand up for his rights. However, at the end of the day, mere educational qualification is not one of the essential criteria which is required to be satisfied by a candidate to vote or be elected. An uneducated electorate has the right to elect one of them as their representative in the State Legislative Assembly."
Advocate Kishore Dutta appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Anuran Samanta appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner sought information through the Right to Information Act, received a reply, and subsequently lodged a complaint with the Chief Election Commission of India. The petitioner argued that, under Article 192 of the Constitution of India, the Election Commission's opinion was crucial, and the delay in action prompted the present challenge.
The petitioner contended that the respondent's alleged misrepresentation constituted a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, justifying disqualification. Additionally, the petitioner invoked Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act, asserting that the improper acceptance of the respondent's nomination materially affected the election's result.
The Court, however, examined the relevant legal provisions and evidence. It concluded that the disqualifications outlined in Chapter III of the 1951 Act, read in conjunction with Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, were not applicable to the respondent. The Court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on Section 36(4) and Section 100(1)(d)(i), emphasizing that educational qualification, not being a substantial defect, did not warrant disqualification. The Court added, “Even if we read Section 100 with Section 36(4), a nomination paper may not be rejected on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. Educational qualification, not being an essential criterion for getting elected, would not be a defect of a substantial character.”
The Court highlighted the insufficiency of the evidence provided by the petitioner and emphasized the need for a competent criminal court for a thorough examination of the alleged fraud. It also questioned the broader significance of educational qualifications as a criterion for candidacy.
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that none of the criteria for disqualification were met in the case.
Cause Title: Gopal Seth v. Election Commission Of India & Ors.
Click here to read/download Judgment
