Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-30-2003
Reported in : AIR2003SC3057; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)707; 2003(4)AWC2920(SC); 2003(3)CTC620; JT2003(6)SC283; (2003)135PLR531; 2003(5)SCALE602; (2003)8SCC369
..... act. hence it is validthe provision is discriminatory?12. it was submitted that though the state of haryana has introduced such a provision of disqualification by reference to elective offices in panchayats, a similar provision is not found to have been enacted for disqualifying aspirants or holders of elective or public offices in other institutions of local self-governance and also not in state legislatures ..... entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.(2) nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the state from making any law -(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;(b) providing for social ..... would disable a person from contesting for, or holding, an elective statutory office.23. reiterating the law laid down in n.p. ponnuswami v. returning officer, namakkal constituency : 1scr218 , and jagan nath v. jaswant singh and ors., : 1scr892 , this court held in jyoti basu and ors. v. debi ghosal and ors., : 3scr318 , - 'a right ..... directly filed in this court wherein the only question arising for decision is the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the haryana act. there were many a writ petitions filed in the high court of punjab & haryana under articles 226/227 of the constitution which have been dismissed and appeals by special leave have been filed in this .....Tag this Judgment!