Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court Upholds Disqualification of Expired Committee Members from Casting Votes in APMC Elections. Gujarat High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak dismissed an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal No. 382 of 2023) filed by Joitabhai Magandas Patel and others, affirming that members of an expired Managing Committee of a cooperative society cannot claim the right to vote in Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) elections merely because their names feature in the final voter list.

The Court ruled that the right to vote is not absolute and is subject to the voter's continued eligibility under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, which mandates that a person must hold the necessary capacity (membership in the Managing Committee) on the date of voting.

“A Voter Shall be Qualified Unless He Has Ceased to Hold the Capacity in Which His Name was Entered” — Rule 6 is the Threshold

The appellants were earlier members of the Managing Committee of Vajapur Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., a cooperative society participating in the APMC, Vijapur elections. Their names were included in the voters’ list prepared by the Authorized Officer. However, it was undisputed that their five-year term as members expired on 30.06.2022, before the election notification dated 18.08.2022.

Despite objections from rival members pointing out the appellants' disqualification due to expiry of their tenure, the Authorized Officer had allowed the appellants' names to remain in the final voters' list published on 03.10.2022. However, when the voting took place on 03.02.2023, the Presiding Officer prohibited them from voting, invoking Rule 6, leading to the present legal battle.

Presiding Officer’s Power Under Rule 6 is Not Limited to Identity Verification — Court Rules

The main argument advanced by Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate for the appellants was that the Presiding Officer could not sit in judgment over the eligibility of voters after the publication of the final voter list. He submitted that the Presiding Officer's duty is confined to conducting polling, maintaining order, and preventing impersonation, but not adjudicating voter disqualification.

Countering this, the State and objectors argued that Rule 6 squarely applies on the date of voting and eligibility is not frozen merely because a name exists in the final voters’ list. The State maintained that the Presiding Officer, in exercising supervision, was entitled to act upon apparent disqualifications emerging from factual records.

High Court Observes: "Mere Inclusion in Voters’ List Does Not Create an Irrevocable Right to Vote"

The Bench observed: "Under Rule 6 of the Rules, a person whose name is entered in the list of voters shall be qualified to vote unless he has ceased to hold the capacity in which his name was entered."

Since the appellants ceased to be members after 30.06.2022, they lacked the necessary capacity to vote even though their names appeared in the final list. The Court also noted that the rival members, who were newly elected on 21.08.2022, had already filed an election petition under Rule 28, challenging the inclusion of the appellants and seeking fresh elections.

The Court clarified that permitting the appellants to bypass the statutory remedy of an election petition by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution would lead to judicial interference in an ongoing election dispute, which is impermissible.

“Alternative Remedy Under Rule 28 Must Be Exhausted” — High Court Refuses Writ Jurisdiction

The Court found no exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the principle that election disputes must be addressed through the statutory election petition mechanism.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. v. R.D. Rohit and previous Division Bench rulings, the Court reiterated that election disputes concerning voter qualification, inclusion or exclusion from voters' lists, or voting rights must be adjudicated exclusively under Rule 28, and not through writ jurisdiction.

The Court emphasized: "When there was before the learned Single Judge two categories of persons of the same committee — one whose names were not included and another whose names were wrongly included — and an election petition was pending, any observation made by this Court would have direct impact on the election petition which is pending."

No Right to Cast Vote After Expiry of Committee Term, Even if Voter List Retains Name — Supreme Principle Affirmed

The High Court decisively held that inclusion in the voter list does not cure disqualification arising from cessation of capacity. If a member’s statutory tenure has expired, the right to vote is lost, irrespective of clerical continuance in the voters’ list.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 2nd April 2025