<p>The High Court has said that a nominated member has no right to vote in the meeting to elect the president and vice president of a municipality.</p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe said that an elected member, chosen by people and a nominated member, who is inducted for the purpose of an advisory role, cannot be treated as belonging to one class.</p>.<p>The petitioners were nominated as councilors of the Malur Town Municipal Council on February 27, 2021.</p>.<p>They were permitted to cast votes in the election held on December 30, 2021, by way of an interim order.</p>.<p>The petitioners challenged the validity of section 11 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Municipalities (KM) Act, 1964, as well as the Constitutional validity of proviso to Article 243-R (2) (a) of the Constitution on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 and is contrary to basic structure of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The court pointed out that Article 243R (2)(a) mandates that nominated members shall not have right to vote in the meetings of the municipality and the proviso appended to section 11 (1) of the KM Act is in consonance with it.</p>.<p>Pointing out that the Supreme Court had made a distinction between elected members and nominated members, the division bench said the latter play essentially an advisory role.</p>.<p>“The elected members of the Council are chosen by popular vote and carry with them the mandate of the people, whereas nominated members of the Council are appointed as Councilors. The elected members and nominated members cannot be said to be belonging to the same class and there is no pleading that differentiation between elected and nominated members is either unreasonable or is arbitrary or that it does not rest on any rational basis. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, challenge to the validity of Article 243R (2) (a) that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, fails,” the court said.</p>.<p>The bench said that a conjoint reading of section 42 (2) of the KM Act and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice President) Election Rules, 1965 leaves no doubt that the president has to be elected in a meeting of the Council.</p>.<p>“Therefore, the contention that the bar which disentitles the nominated members to vote in the meeting for election to the post of President and Vice President of the Council does not apply to a meeting held for election to the post of President and Vice-President of the Council does not deserve acceptance," the bench said.</p>
<p>The High Court has said that a nominated member has no right to vote in the meeting to elect the president and vice president of a municipality.</p>.<p>A division bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe said that an elected member, chosen by people and a nominated member, who is inducted for the purpose of an advisory role, cannot be treated as belonging to one class.</p>.<p>The petitioners were nominated as councilors of the Malur Town Municipal Council on February 27, 2021.</p>.<p>They were permitted to cast votes in the election held on December 30, 2021, by way of an interim order.</p>.<p>The petitioners challenged the validity of section 11 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Municipalities (KM) Act, 1964, as well as the Constitutional validity of proviso to Article 243-R (2) (a) of the Constitution on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 and is contrary to basic structure of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The court pointed out that Article 243R (2)(a) mandates that nominated members shall not have right to vote in the meetings of the municipality and the proviso appended to section 11 (1) of the KM Act is in consonance with it.</p>.<p>Pointing out that the Supreme Court had made a distinction between elected members and nominated members, the division bench said the latter play essentially an advisory role.</p>.<p>“The elected members of the Council are chosen by popular vote and carry with them the mandate of the people, whereas nominated members of the Council are appointed as Councilors. The elected members and nominated members cannot be said to be belonging to the same class and there is no pleading that differentiation between elected and nominated members is either unreasonable or is arbitrary or that it does not rest on any rational basis. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, challenge to the validity of Article 243R (2) (a) that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, fails,” the court said.</p>.<p>The bench said that a conjoint reading of section 42 (2) of the KM Act and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice President) Election Rules, 1965 leaves no doubt that the president has to be elected in a meeting of the Council.</p>.<p>“Therefore, the contention that the bar which disentitles the nominated members to vote in the meeting for election to the post of President and Vice President of the Council does not apply to a meeting held for election to the post of President and Vice-President of the Council does not deserve acceptance," the bench said.</p>
