Election Law Case: Peshal Dahal & Others v. Parliament Secretariat, NKP 2056, Vol. 41, No. 1, P.6, DN: 6648
Case: Certiorari
Petitioner: Dr. Peshal Dahal and 2 Others
Respondents: Parliament Secretariat and 3 Others
Decision Number: 6648
This case is about the constitutional validity of Section 7(c) of the Voter List Act, 2052, concerning the voter-registration rights of persons residing in places such as employee residences and hostels.
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Peshal Dahal and two other petitioners were Nepali citizens who were living in Kathmandu for different purposes. Dr. Peshal Dahal had been teaching at Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, since 2038 and had been residing in the professor’s residential quarters since 2047. Another petitioner, Sundar Bahadur Tumbahamphe, was working at Teaching Hospital, Maharajgunj, and was living in the hospital’s residential quarters. The third petitioner, Ved Prakash Jaisi Bhattarai, was studying at Ascol Campus and was residing in the campus hostel.
The petitioners challenged Section 7(c) of the Voter List Act, 2052, which provided that persons residing in employee residential quarters, military or police barracks, industrial establishments’ housing, hospitals, schools, colleges, hostels, orphanages, old-age homes, prisons and similar places would not be considered permanently residing in that electoral area.
The petitioners argued that this provision was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of adult suffrage and violated their rights under Articles 3, 11, 12 and 45 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2047. They also argued that persons living in such residences could be unable to register as voters either in their permanent residence or in their current place of residence. They therefore requested the Supreme Court to declare Section 7(c) unconstitutional and invalid and to issue appropriate writs, including certiorari and mandamus.
The Election Commission defended the provision, arguing that its purpose was to ensure that a person could vote in only one electoral constituency and to prevent duplicate voter registration. According to the Commission, a person temporarily living in an employee residence, hostel or similar place continued to have permanent residence in their original electoral constituency and could register there.
Legal Issues:
- Whether Section 7(c) of the Voter List Act, 2052 was consistent with the Constitution of Nepal, 2047.
- Whether Section 7(c) violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to vote under Article 45(6).
- Whether the provision violated the right to equality under Article 11 of the Constitution.
- Whether the provision was inconsistent with the constitutional freedom of movement and residence and the freedom to choose a profession, occupation, trade or business under Article 12(2)(d) and (e).
- Whether treating persons residing in employee quarters, hospitals, hostels and similar places as not permanently residing there created an unconstitutional restriction on voting rights.
Decision of the Court:
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 7(c) of the Voter List Act, 2052 was not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court held that a person living temporarily in places such as employee quarters or hostels could still vote in their permanent electoral constituency. Therefore, practical inconvenience did not amount to denial of the right to vote.
Principle Established:
The right to vote in one electoral constituency is subject to the procedure established by law. Practical inconvenience in voting does not amount to deprivation of the constitutional right to vote.
