Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by Vinayak Bhiva Bhilare and Miss. Vaishali Chandane challenging Act No. XXVI of 2011, which amended Section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (BPMC Act) and Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (MMC Act). The amendment introduced multi-member wards in municipal corporations and councils, allowing each ward to elect two or three councillors, and entitled each voter to cast as many votes as the number of councillors to be elected in that ward. The petitioners contended that the amendment was ultra vires the Constitution, specifically Articles 243R, 243T, 243ZA, 243Z, and 14, arguing that it violated the principle of one person one vote and the requirement of direct election from territorial constituencies. The State and the Election Commission defended the amendment, asserting that the Constitution does not prescribe single-member wards or single votes, and that the amendment was a valid legislative policy to enhance representation. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Article 243R, which allows the Legislature to make provisions for the composition of municipalities. The court noted that Article 243R does not mandate single-member wards, and the amendment does not violate Article 243T (reservation of seats) or Article 243ZA (elections). The court also rejected the argument under Article 14, stating that the classification of wards into multi-member constituencies is reasonable and based on intelligible differentia. The petitions were dismissed, and the amendment was upheld as valid.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Municipal Elections - Multi-Member Wards - Amendment to Section 5 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and Section 10 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - The amendment substituted the words 'elect only one Councillor' with 'elect as far as possible two Councillors but not less than two and not more than three Councillors, and each voter shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be entitled to cast the same number of votes, as the number of Councillors to be elected in his ward' - Petitioners challenged the amendment as ultra vires the Constitution, arguing that it violates Articles 243R, 243T, 243ZA, 243Z, and 14 - The Court held that the amendment is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Article 243R and does not violate any constitutional provision - The Court reasoned that the Constitution does not mandate single-member wards or single vote per voter for municipal elections, and the amendment is a valid policy decision to ensure better representation and governance (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, introducing multi-member wards and multiple votes per voter, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 243R, 243T, 243ZA, 243Z, and 14.
Final Decision
The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of Act No. XXVI of 2011 amending Section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and Section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
Law Points
- Multi-member wards
- multiple votes
- single transferable vote
- proportional representation
- municipal elections
- legislative competence
- Article 243R
- Article 243T
- Article 243ZA
- Article 243Z
- Article 14
- Article 243C
- Article 243S
- Article 243Y
- Article 243ZF
- Article 243ZG
- Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act
- 1949
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils
- Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act
- 1965
- Act No. XXVI of 2011
