NAIN SUKH DAS AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

NAIN SUKH DAS AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

The petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 32 because their claimed right as rate-payers to insist on a legally constituted Board is not a fundamental right under Part III. The alleged infringement related to rights the petitioners did not attempt to assert during the elections, and their failure to do so precluded enforcement under Article 32.

Parties
Petitioner: Nain Sukh Das; Petitioner: Another (co-petitioner); Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Respondent No. 4; Respondent: District Magistrate Etah (Respondent No. 2); Respondent: Civil Judge Etah (Respondent No. 13); Respondent: Respondent No. 3; Respondent: Respondent No. 11; Respondent: Respondent No. 12
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 May 1953
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Election Law, Discrimination, Municipal Elections
Constitutional Law Fundamental Rights Election Law Discrimination Municipal Elections

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nain Sukh Das

Petitioner

Another (co-petitioner)

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

District Magistrate Etah (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent

Civil Judge Etah (Respondent No. 13)

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Respondent No. 11

Respondent

Respondent No. 12

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether holding municipal by-elections on communal lines with separate electorates violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether petitioners can seek enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32 when their grievance relates to rights they did not attempt to assert during the election

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 32 because their claimed right as rate-payers to insist on a legally constituted Board is not a fundamental right under Part III. The alleged infringement related to rights the petitioners did not attempt to assert during the elections, and their failure to do so precluded enforcement under Article 32.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioners' application under Article 32 dismissed with costs, one set.