(Querist) 23 January 2009
This query is : Resolved
Sate Legislation of Gujarat enacted a piece of legislation namely “The Gujarat Panchayati Raj, 2001. U/S. 12 of which a person with more than 2 living children has been disqualified for election of panchayats of each level and resultantly debarring from holding the office in Panchayati Raj Institutions to popularize family welfare program & family planning program. Md. Hafiz a permanent inhabitant of Gujarat having 5 sons & 4 daughters living through a writ before the Gujarat High Court challenged the said Act inter-alia on the following grounds:- 1) That the provision of the said Act is arbitral and discriminatory and consistently violating of Article 14 of the constitution.(Art.14) 2) That the provision of the said Act adversely affects the liberty of leading personal life in all its freedom & having as many children as one pleases to have and therefore against the spirit of Article 21 of the constitution. 3) That the provision of the said Act interferes with the freedom of religion as it is the policy of Muslims that to have more children means more nearness to Allah and therefore against the preamble objectives of the secular state as well as is hampering the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed in Article 25 of the constitution.
Negativiting the contentions, the High Court opined that the problem of population explosion is a national and global issue which provides justification for priority in policy oriented legislation whenever needed and accordingly uphold the action of the state.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioner filled an appeal before the Supreme Court, the next date of which has been fixed on 2nd July, 2009 for hearing.
Please give me suggestions, how to plead for this case on behalf of either the PLAITIFF......
(Expert) 23 January 2009
The point opoined by the Hon'ble Court does seems to be against u and in true sense but still u may take the point of retropective effect apllicability? Rest leave on court! al d bst!
(Expert) 24 January 2009
Mr. Aniket what I suggest for your query is that all such fundamental rights available to us are subject certain reasonable restrictions, and subject to the interest of the nation and welfare and security and other aspects of the nation, In my opinion and as per law also no fundamental rights especially article 25 is subject to theabove restrictions, and more over having the children at infinity in the name of god is not a fundamental right which can be infringed, interalia it is causing a great hardship to nation and to society and increasing population. And the citations of the supreme court also says that the above aspect of having children as they wish is not an fundamental right.non of the articles are infringed either Article 14, 21, or 25 and the very legislation is valid and correct inthe interest of the public at large and the nation.
(Expert) 24 January 2009
The law is clearly violative of fundamental rights. In fact, on the same point P&H High Court decided in the same manner and probably that judgment was sustained in SC. Citizen's Right to participate in democratic process is not only a fundamental right but even a basic feature of the Constitution. Two child norm is merely a policy of the government- a person may follow or may not follow. To penalise a person, so much so to exclude him from the democratic process, for not following a government policy is barbarious. It is uncivilised, it is undemocratic and must be condemned.
Just think, tomorrow a government may come and say by law that hinduism is necessary for this country- you are not following it so you are barred from democratic process. Barring people from democratic process- for not following a government policy (which is not even a criminal offence or civil wrong)- rubbish. There cant be an act more undemocratic than this.
(Expert) 13 February 2009
The restriction is not a reasonable one.It is not a ground of disqualification comes under the Representation of Peoples Act,1951.
(Expert) 23 February 2009
1. This way imposing the reasonable restrictions, in the interest of public at large, the state action shall be upheld. 2. It can never be violation of Arts. 14, 21 & 25. 3. In the name of reasonable restrictions, the state shall not violate the provisions of the constitution of india. 4. The state has to maintain the balance between the fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy in view of welfare state.
(Expert) 02 April 2009
i agree with my ld. friends