JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order in this case will also govern the disposal of M. Ps. Nos. JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order in this case will also govern the disposal of M. Ps. Nos. 3157/88, 3420/88, 3507/88, 4147/88, 4185/88, 4188/88, 4191/88, 4197/88, 4198/88, 4200/88, 4214/88, 4215/88, 4219/88, 4220/88, 4224/88, 4231/88, 4240/88, 4253/88, 4254/88, 4261/88, 4263/88, 4264/88, 4267/88, 4270/88, 4272/88, 4274/88, 4276/88, 4280/88, 4281/88, 4295/88, 4300/88, 4330/88, 4331/88, 4342/88, 4347/88, 4353/88, 4357/88, 4360/88, 4371/88, 4380/88, 4381/88, 4412/88, 4413/88, 4414/88, 4423/88, 4460/88, 13/89, 14/89, 190/89, 278/89, 285/89, 286/89, 288/89, 293/89, 294/89, 297/89, 300/89, 302/89, 307/89, 312/89, 313/89, 320/89, 321/89, 323/89, 327/89, 329/89, 332/89, 333/89, 334/89, 335/89, 336/89, 338/89, 342/89, 343/89, 344/89, 346/89, 349/89, 350/89, 352/89, 354/89, 356/89, 358/89, 359/89, 360/89, 362/89, 363/89, 369/89, 376/89, 378/89, 380/89, 383/89, 385/89, 392/89, 400/89, 402/89, 406/89, 407/89, 408/89, 411/89, 423/89, 424/89, 425/89, 426/89, 427/89, 428/89, 430/89, 431/89, 433/89, 434/89, 436/89, 437/89, 439/89, 440/89, 444/89, 445/89, 447/89, 450/89, 455/89, 457/89, 458/89, 459/89, 462/89, 467/89, 469/89, 472/89, 476/89, 504/89, 511/89, 513/89, 515/89, 519/89, 521/89, 522/89, 523/89, 524/89, 525/89, 526/89, 527/89, 528/89, 532/89, 533/89, 534/89, 536/89, 539/89, 545/89, 564/89, 574/89, 576/89, 578/89, 580/89, 586/89, 604/89, 605/89, 608/89, 609/89, 610/89, 611/89, 617/89, 619/89, 620/89, 621/89, 622/89, 623/89, 625/89, 634/89, 640/89, 641/89, 643/89, 644/89, 645/89, 653/89, 658/89, 659/89, 660/89, 661/89, 662/89, 663/89, 664/89, 665/89, 666/89, 667/89, 668/89, 669/89, 670/89, 671/89, 672/89, 673/89, 675/89, 677/89, 681/89, 683/89, 684/89, 688/89, 692/89, 697/89, 701/89, 713/89, 714/89, 715/89, 717/89, 718/89, 721/89, 724/89, 725/89, 726/89, 729/89, 730/89, 731/89, 732/89, 733/89, 734/89, 736/89, 738/89, 743/89, 744/89, 745/89, 747/89, 748/89, 749/89, 750/89, 751/89, 754/89, 755/89, 756/89, 757/89, 763/89, 765/89, 766/89, 767/89, 768/89, 769/89, 772/89, 773/89, 774/89, 775/89, 776/89, 777/89, 778/89, 779/89, 780/89, 781/89, 782/89, 783/89, 784/89, 785/89, 786/89, 789/89, 790/89, 793/89, 795/89, 796/89, 798/89, 800/89, 801/89, 802/89, 803/89, 804/89, 809/89, 810/89, 812/89, 813/89, 814/89, 817/89, 821/89, 823/89, 824/89, 825/89, 827/89, 830/89, 840/89, 845/89, 846/89, 849/89, 850/89, 851/89, 853/89, 855/89, 856/89, 858/89, 859/89, 861/89, 862/89, 863/89, 864/89, 865/89, 866/89, 867/89, 869/89, 870/89, 871/89, 874/89, 875/89, 876/89, 877/89, 880/89, 881/89, 882/89, 883/89, 886/89, 889/89, 890/89, 891/89, 892/89, 894/89, 895/89, 896/89, 899/89, 901/89, 904/89, 905/89, 906/89, 907/89, 908/89, 909/89, 911/89, 913/89, 914/89, 915/89, 921/89, 922/89, 924/89, 928/89, 929/89, 930/89, 931/89, 932/89, 936/89, 941/89, 942/89, 943/89, 945/89, 950/89, 951/89, 953/89, 955/89, 956/89, 958/89, 959/89, 963/89, 964/89, 965/89, 968/89, 975/89, 976/89, 981/89, 985/89, 986/89, 988/89, 990/89, 994/89, 995/89, 998/89, 999/89, 1001/89, 1005/89, 1007/89, 1011/89, 1013/89, 1018/89, 1019/89, 1020/89, 1021/89, 1027/89, 1028/89, 1029/89, 1032/89, 1034/89, 1039/89, 1040/89, 1041/89, 1044/89, 1050/89, 1051/89, 1054/89, 1061/89, 1065/89, 1066/89, 1067/89, 1068/89, 1070/89, 1071/89, 1074/89, 1076/89, 1079/89, 1081/89, 1082/89, 1085/89, 1088/89, 1090/89, 1091/89, 1096/89, 1098/89, 1099/89, 1101/89, 1105/89, 1110/89, 1111/89, 1114/89, 1117/89, 1118/89, 1131/89, 1133/89, 1134/89, 1135/89, 1136/89, 1137/89, 1138/89, 1140/89, 1141/89, 1152/89, 1166/89, 1169/89, 1171/89, 1172/89, 1173/89, 1177/89, 1185/89, 1186/89, 1187/89, 1188/89, 1190/89, 1191/89, 1192/89, 1193/89, 1195/89, 1197/89, 1199/89, 1201/89, 1202/89, 1204/89, 1205/89, 1211/89, 1212/89, 1214/89, 1220/89, 1223/89, 1224/89, 1225/89, 1226/89, 1227/89, 1229/89, 1230/89, 1232/89, 1233/89, 1234/89, 1236/89, 1238/89, 1239/89, 1240/89, 1243/89, 1245/89, 1247/89, 1249/89, 1253/89, 1254/89, 1255/89, 1256/89, 1261/89, 1262/89, 1264/89, 1265/89, 1266/89, 1268/89, 1269/89, 1270/89, 1272/89, 1273/89, 1275/89, 1276/89, 1277/89, 1278/89, 1279/89, 1282/89, 1283/89, 1284/89, 1285/89, 1286/89, 1287/89, 1289/89, 1292/89, 1293/89, 1294/89, 1296/89, 1298/89, 1299/89, 1302/89, 1303/89, 1304/89, 1305/89, 1306/89, 1307/89, 1308/89, 1309/89, 1310/89, 1311/89, 1313/89, 1314/89, 1315/89, 1317/89, 1319/89, 1324/89, 1325/89, 1330/89, 1332/89, 1333/89, 1337/89, 1339/89, 1340/89, 1341/89, 1342/89, 1343/89, 1344/89, 1345/89, 1348/89, 1351/89, 1352/89, 1354/89, 1366/89, 1367/89, 1368/89, 1371/89, 1374/89, 1377/89, 1378/89, 1382/89, 1386/89, 1394/89, 1395/89, 1396/89, 1397/89, 1399/89, 1400/89, 1409/89, 1410/89, 1411/89, 1412/89, 1415/89, 1416/89, 1417/89, 1420/89, 1438/89, 1442/89, 1454/89, 1455/89, 1457/89, 1459/89, 1465/89, 1468/89, 1469/89, 1470/89, 1471/89, 1476/89, 1478/89, 1480/89, 1487/89, 1489/89, 1490/89, 1491/89, 1492/89, 1493/89, 1494/89, 1506/89, 1521/89, 1523/89, 1526/89, 1527/89, 1528/89, 1533/89, 1535/89, 1539/89, 1541/89, 1544/89, 1550/89, 1551/89, 1553/89, 1556/89, 1557/89, 1558/89, 1560/89, 1561/89, 1562/89, 1563/89, 1564/89, 1567/89, 1569/89, 1570/89, 1571/89, 1572/89, 1573/89, 1575/89, 1581/89, 1583/89, 1585/89, 1587/89, 1588/89, 1589/89, 1596/89, 1597/89, 1598/89, 1599/89, 1600/89, 1601/89, 1602/89, 1615/89, 1621/89, 1622/89, 1623/89, 1624/89, 1627/89, 1634/89, 1635/89, 1636/89, 1637/89, 1638/89, 1639/89, 1643/89, 1644/89, 1645/89, 1648/89, 1649/89, 1650/89, 1651/89, 1652/89, 1653/89, 1654/89, 1655/89, 1661/89, 1662/89, 1663/89, 1664/89, 1665/89, 1666/89, 1671/89, 1672/89, 1673/89, 1674/89, 1677/89, 1678/89, 1679/89, 1680/89, 1681/89, 1683/89, 1684/89, 1685/89, 1686/89, 1687/89, 1688/89, 1690/89, 1693/89, 1694/89, 1695/89, 1696/89, 1697/89, 1698/89, 1699/89, 1701/89, 1702/89, 1704/89, 1705/89, 1706/89, 1707/89, 1709/89, 1713/89, 1717/89, 1718/89, 1720/89, 1721/89, 1723/89, 1724/89, 1726/89, 1729/89, 1730/89, 1731/89, 1732/89, 1733/89, 1734/89, 1736/89, 1738/89, 1739/89, 1747/89, 1750/89, 1760/89, 1761/89, 1794/89, 1804/89, 1810/89, 1812/89, 1824/89, 1839/89, 1854/89, 1863/89, 1865/89, 1871/89, 1873/89, 1885/89, 1887/89, 1901/89, 1906/89, 1909/89, 1946/89, 1964/89, 1973/89, 2001/89, 2005/89, 2008/89, 2011/89, 2033/89, 2037/89, 2038/89, 2048/89, 2035/89, 2056/89, 2059/89, 2062/89, 2077/89, 2085/89, 2086/89, 2087/89, 2131/89, 2142/89, 2145/89, 2162/89, 2168/89, 2174/89, 2188/89, 2220/89, 2228/89, 2230/89, 2240/89, 2242/89, 2246/89, 2248/89, 2249/89, 2250/89, 2251/89, 2253/89, 2259/89, 2270/89, 2319/89, 2383/89, 2386/89, 2413/89, 2483/89, 2519/89, 2811/89, 3592/88, 4226/88, 4229/88, 4232/88, 4242/88, 4247/88, 4250/88, 4255/88, 4256/88, 4258/88, 4268/88, 4334/88, 4350/88, 4362/88, 4400/88, 4422/88, 87/89, 274/89, 301/89, 314/89, 351/89, 365/89, 377/89, 410/89, 412/89, 465/89, 535/89, 544/89, 627/89, 651/89, 728/89, 792/89, 833/89, 1002/89, 1003/89, 1048/89, 1063/89, 1064/89, 1069/89, 1080/89, 1095/89, 1113/89, 1295/89, 1375/89, 1378/89, 1725/89, 1773/89, 1968/89, 834/89, 2225/89, 2278/89, 3113/89, 3274/89, 3275/89, 3277/89, 3278/89 and 3279/89. ( 2. ) BY these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of certain provisions of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the M. P. Panchayat (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1988 (Act No. 26 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 3. ) BEFORE we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the M. P. Panchayat Act, 1981, as amended by the M. P. Panchayat (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1988. Section 3 of the Act provides that there shall be established a gram Panchayat for the village or group of villages, a Janpad Panchayat for a block forming part of a district and a Zilla Panchayat for a District. Section 7 of the Act provides that each Gram Panchayat area shall be divided into not less than 10 wards as may be determined by the Collector and that each ward shall be a single ward. Section 11 of the Act, prior to its amendment, provided that every gram Panchayat shall consist of Panchas elected from the wards and Panchas co-opted in the manner prescribed. Section 11 has been amended by the amending Act and now it provides that every Gram Panchayat shall consist of panchas elected from the wards, elected Sarpanchas and Panchas co-opted, if any, as provided by that section. Sub-section (4) of section 1 i of the Act provided for reservation of certain seats of Panchas for persons belonging to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes, but there was no provision for reservation of seats for women. By the Amending Act, a provision for reservation of seats for women has been made by sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act which reads as follows : - "out of total number of wards of the Gram Panchayat, twenty per cent wards, subject to minimum of two shall be reserved for women. By the Amending Act, a provision for reservation of seats for women has been made by sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act which reads as follows : - "out of total number of wards of the Gram Panchayat, twenty per cent wards, subject to minimum of two shall be reserved for women. For the purpose of such reservation, the Collector shall - (i) Work out the percentage of women voters of each ward in relation to total number of such ward; (ii) arrange the wards in order of percentage of women voters in descending order; and (iii) reserve the required number of wards subject to minimum of two in order of percentage as arranged under (ii) above : provided that in the event of the percentage of women voters being equal in wards more than two, the ward to be reserved for women shall be determined by drawing lot by the Collector. " Section 15 of the Act which provided for election of Sarpanch by the Panchas, has now been substituted by a provision which provides for direct election of a sarpanch. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 15 which are material for the purpose of these petitions, are as follows : "15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). The State Government shall, taking into account the population of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State and the density of population of the such castes and tribes in different areas of the State, by notification, reserve the seats of sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats for them. (3 ). Ten percent of seats of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats of janapada Panchayat area shall be reserved for women. (3 ). Ten percent of seats of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats of janapada Panchayat area shall be reserved for women. For the purpose of such reservation, the Collector shall - (i) work out the percentage of female population of each Gram panchayat in relation to total population of such Gram Panchayat; (ii) arrange the Gram Panchayats in order of percentage of female population in descending order; and (iii) reserve the required number of Gram Panchayats in order of percentage as arranged under (ii) above : provided that in the event of the percentage of female population being equal in Gram Panchayats more than two, the Gram Panchayat to be reserved for women shall be determined by drawing lot by the Collector. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, the word population means the preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. " Sections 22 and 23 of the Act relating to election of members and President of janapad Panchayats and section 27 of the Act relating to election of Chairmen of zilla Panchayats contained provisions for reservation of seats for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. By the Amending Act, provision has now also been made for reservation for seats for women. ( 4. ) THE first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Act as amended, providing for reservation of seats for women and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, are ultra vires as being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 (1) of the Constitution. It was contended that there could be no reservation in units of self Government, that a special provision for reservation of seats in the Parliament and the Legislative assemblies for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was made in the Constitution as a temporary measure and that the constitutional scheme was clearly indicative of a prohibition against all discrimination for or against any citizen in the field of franchise and electoral rights. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in Janardan Paswan and others vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1988 Patna 75. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in Janardan Paswan and others vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1988 Patna 75. It was further contended that article 15 (3) of the Constitution only confers protection for women and children and that in any event, any special provision as contemplated by Article 15 (3) of the Constitution could be made for women and children together and not for women alone. In reply, it was contended by the learned Advocate-General that articles 15 (3) and 15 (4) of the Constitution enable the State to make special provisions for women and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that though women constitute nearly 50% of thepopulation, their representation in gram Panchayats, Janapad Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats was almost negligible and that a pro ision for reservation of seats for women had been made to enable them to participete te in the units of self-Government. ( 5. ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Amending Act providing for reservation of seats for women and for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are ultra vires, being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 (1) of the Constitution of India. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Article 15 (1) provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. As H. M. Seervai, the learned author in constitutional Law of India (Third Edition), Vol. 1 at page 389 points out, reading Articles 14 and 15 (1) together, it follows that the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 to any person does not carry with it the right against discrimination on the prohibited grounds because if Article 14 conferred on citizens or non-citizens alike the right against discrimination on the prohibited grounds, then Article 15 (1) could not confer that very right on citizens alone. Moreover, it is now well-settled that Article 14 permits classification founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. It cannot be denied that in our country, especially in rural areas, women are more backward than men. Moreover, it is now well-settled that Article 14 permits classification founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. It cannot be denied that in our country, especially in rural areas, women are more backward than men. It cannot also be disputed that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are weaker sections of the society and it is a matter of regret and concern for the society that even after 42 years after achieving independence, there has been no appreciable progress in the lot of women and of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. It is the duty of the State to improve their lot. It has been stated in the return filed on behalf of the State and not denied by the petitioners that till the end of the year 1988, out of 18,801 Sarpanchas, only 129 were women, out of 450 janpad Panchayats, only three women were Presidents and out of 45 District panchayats, only one woman was Chairman of a District Panchayat. Experience has thus shown that unless there is reservation in favour of women and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, their participation in the panchayats which according to the directive principle of the Constitution enshrined in Article 40, have to function as units of self-Government, would be negligible. Therefore, it must be held that provision for reservation of seats for women and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the panchayats is founded on reasonable classification permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution and the contention that the impugned provisions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, cannot be upheld. ( 6. ) IT is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners, relying on the decision in Jananian Paswan and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra), that there could not be reservation in units of self-Government and that as observed in janardan Paswan and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra), the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution equally mandates an equality of franchise for the citizen in the context of elections generally and in particular with regard to the elections at the grass root level or village Panchayat. Now there can be no manner of doubt that the founding fathers were deeply solicitous of the right of franchise Article 325 provides that there shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for election to either House of Parliament or either houses of the Legislature of a State and no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll or claim to be included in any special electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them. The impugned Act also does not provide for separate electorates. Section 10 of the Act provides that every person who is not disqualified for registration in the list of voters of a Gram Panchayat and who is not less than 18 years of age, and is ordinarily resident in a Gram Panchayat area and is otherwise qualified to be represented in the Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the Gram Panchayat area, shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters. The Patna High Court, in Janardan Paswan and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (supra), with respect it must be said has erroneously assumed that the right to vote also includes the right to contest elections. The various American decisions referred to in Janardan Paswan and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (supra), deal with the question of right to vote in an election. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that one person one vote is the fundamental premise of the democratic system and any debasement or dilution of the equality of the right of vote cannot be countenanced. Our founding fathers were aware of the ills of separate electorate and delimitation of constituencies formed on the basis of considerations of caste, religion or sex would be liable to be struck down. Such discrimination was struck down by wanchoo, C. J. as he then was, in Bhopal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others, air 1958 Raj. 41 . Any law providing for elections on the basis of separate electorates would be void. But the impugned provisions do not bring about separate electorates. They merely provide for reservation of seats for women and for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be elected by all the voters of the constituency irrespective of consideration of caste, religion, race or sex. But the impugned provisions do not bring about separate electorates. They merely provide for reservation of seats for women and for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be elected by all the voters of the constituency irrespective of consideration of caste, religion, race or sex. The impugned provisions, therefore, do not offend the constitutional mandate of equality of franchise with regard to elections. ( 7. ) THE contention that reservation of seats in units of self-Government is prohibited by the Constitution is not well founded. The fact that special provisions are made by part XVI of the Constitution for reservation in the House of People and Legislative Assemblies, cannot lead to the conclusion that in other bodies, no such reservation can be made. It is true that reservation of seats should not be a permanent feature, but till the objective of bringing weaker sections of society at par with the other sections is achieved, reservation would be permissible. That is why the period for which reservation was provided by the founding fathers, has been further extended by suitable constitutional amendments. There is no reason to assume that the State Legislature would not periodically review the provisions regarding reservation of seats or would not repeal those provisions once the provisions in the Constitution relating to reservation cease to have effect as provided by Article 334 of the Constitution. The provisions relating to reservation in the Constitution are operative at present. No provision was brought to our notice prohibiting reservation of seats for weaker sections of the society in units of self-Government. If such reservation is permissible, as founded on reasonable classification, it cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 8. ) IT was then contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned provisions violate Article 15 (1) of the Constitution. Reservation of seats for women or for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, no doubt offends the provisions of Article 15 (1) of the Constitution, but sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Article 15 provide that nothing in that Article would prevent the state from making any special provision for women or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. A special provision for women or for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot, therefore, be held to be violative of Article 15 (1) of the Constitution. A special provision for women or for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot, therefore, be held to be violative of Article 15 (1) of the Constitution. It was urged that Article 15 (3) envisages only protective measures like provision for maternity homes, a facility which women alone can avail of. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Bombay high Court in Dattatraya Motiram More vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 Bom. 311 . The question for consideration in that case was whether rules framed by the state Government reserving four seats for women out of 35 elected seats for the jalgaon Municipality, were ultra vires. It was contended before the Bombay High court that Article 15 (3) must be read to mean that only those special provisions for women were permissible which did not result in discrimination against men. Repelling this contention, Chagla, C. J. observed as follows : - "in our opinion, if that was the object of enacting Article 15 (3), then article 15 (3) need not have been enacted at all, because if the special provisions for women contemplated by Article 15 (3) were only those provisions which did not discriminate against men, then no proviso to article 15 (1) was necessary. Article 15 (3) is obviously a proviso to article 15 (1) and proper effect must be given to the proviso. It is true that in construing a proviso, one must not nullify the section itself. A proviso merely carves out something from the section itself, but it does not and cannot destroy the whole section. The proper way to construe article 15 (3), in our opinion, is that whereas under Art. 15 (1)discrimination in favour of men only on the ground of sex is not permissible, by reason of Article 15 (3), discrimination in favour of women is permissible and when the State does discriminate in favour of women, it does not offend against Article 15 (1 ). Therefore, as a result of the joint operation of Article 15 (1) and Article 15 (3), the State may discriminate in favour of women against men, but it may not discriminate in favour of men against women. Therefore, as a result of the joint operation of Article 15 (1) and Article 15 (3), the State may discriminate in favour of women against men, but it may not discriminate in favour of men against women. In this particular case, even if in making special provision for women by giving them reserved seats, the State has discriminated against men by reason of Article 15 (3), the Constitution has permitted the State to do so even though the provision may result in discrimination only on the ground of sex. " We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. In our opinion, Article 15 (3) cannot be construed to mean that it refers to such special provisions for women which must be protective in nature. ( 9. ) IT was also contended that in order to attract the provisions of Article 15 (3), the special provision must relate both to women and children and not to women alone. The contention cannot be upheld. The word and occurring in article 15 (3) after women has to be read as or. In Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs. State of bombay and another, AIR 1954 SC 321 , the validity of the provision of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, in so far as it provides that the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor was challenged on the ground that it offends Article 15 of the Constitution, but that challenge was not upheld in view of Article 15 (3 ). The Supreme Court held that the provision complained of was a special provision made for women and was, therefore, saved by clause (3) of Article 15 of the constitution. If for attracting the provision of Article 15 (3), it was essential that the special provision envisaged by Article 15 (3) should be in respect of both women and children, the validity of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code would not have been upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that it was saved by clause (3) of Article 15. ( 10. ( 10. ) THE next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that even if the provisions of section 11 of the Act as amended, providing for reservation of seats for women and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in gram Panchayats were held to be valid, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 15 of the Act as amended, reserving seats of Sarpanchas of certain Gram Panchayats for women and for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be held to be violative of Article 15 (1) and cannot be held to be saved by article 15 (3) and Article 15 (4), because they have brought about cent percent reservation of seats for women and persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes in the Gram Panchayats reserved for them. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. R. Balaji and others vs. The state of Mysore and others. AIR 1963 SC 649 . Our attention was also invited to the observations of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of bihar and others, 1988 MPLJ (S. C.) 411 = AIR 1988 SC 959 . ( 11. ) BEFORE we proceed to appreciate the aforesaid contention urged on behalf of the petitioners, it has to be borne in mind that the right to be elected is neither a fundamental right, nor a common law right. The following observations in Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others, AIR 1982 SC 983 , are pertinent : "a right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right, nor a Common Law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. " As the right to be elected is neither a fundamental right, nor a common law right, considerations as to whether as a result of reservation of seats for women and for members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the fundamental rights or any other statutory rights of persons constituting the rest of the society, were being completely and absolutely ignored, do not arise. Such considerations, however, are germane when provision for reservation affects the rights of the rest of the society. That is why it was observed in M. R. Balaji and others vs. The State of Mysore and others, (supra) as follows : "it would be extremely unreasonable to assume that in enacting article 15 (4), the Constitution intended to provide that where the advancement of the Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and tribes was concerned, the fundamental rights of the citizens constituting the rest of the society, were to be completely and absolutely ignored. " Article 29 (2) confers a fundamental right that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds or funds only on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Similarly, Article 16 (1) confers a fundamental right that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office of State. It is significant to note that whereas in articles 15 (3) and 15 (4), the expression used is special provisions, in Article 16 (4), however, the expression used is any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts. That is why it was held in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs. State of Bihar and others, (supra), as follows : "it is quite clear after the decision in Devadasans case that no reservation could be made under Article 16 (4) so as to create a monopoly. Otherwise, it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Arts. 16 (1) and 16 (2) wholly meaningless and illusory. These principles unmistakably lead us to the conclusion that if there is only one post in the cadre, there can be no reservation with reference to that post either for recruitment at the initial stage or for filling up a future vacancy in respect of that post. A reservation which would come under Article 16 (4), presupposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre. The question as to whether Article 15 (4) is in the nature of an exception, is not free from difficulty. A reservation which would come under Article 16 (4), presupposes the availability of at least more than one post in that cadre. The question as to whether Article 15 (4) is in the nature of an exception, is not free from difficulty. It was brought to our notice that though in M. R. Balaji and others vs. The State of Mysore and others, (supra), Article 15 (4) was held to be in the nature of an exception, in State of Kerala and another vs. N. M. Thomas and others, AIR 1976 SC 490 , it was held by the majority that Article 16 (4) was not an exception and that the same considerations should apply to Article 15 (4) or article 15 (3 ). It is, however, not necessary for us to deal with this aspect of the matter, because as already pointed out, the right to be elected as a Sarpanch of a gram Panchayat, not being a fundamental right or common law right, it will be governed by the statutory provisions conferring that right. Statutory creation as it is, it will be subject to statutory limitation. Section 15 of the Act as amended lays down that the said right will not be available to persons other than women and those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in respect of those gram Panchayats which have been reserved for women or Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes in accordance with the provisions of section 15. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that reservation of seats of Sarpanchas in certain gram Panchayats has affected the right of the rest of the society. ( 12. ) IT was further contended that the impugned provisions were unreasonable and excessive and hence they should be struck down. Apart from the fact that there is no material on record to indicate that seats of Sarpanchas of gram Panchayats reserved for women and for persons belonging to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes are excessive, unless it is demonstrated that such reservation offends any provision of the Constitution or any other law, the impugned provisions cannot be held to be invalid. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned provisions cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 or 15 (1) of the Constitution. ( 13. Having given our anxious consideration to the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the impugned provisions cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 or 15 (1) of the Constitution. ( 13. ) IT was then contended that section 15 (2) of the Act, as amended, suffered from the vice of excessive delegation and, therefore, deserved to be struck down. The contention deserves to be upheld. It is significant to note that in the Ordinance which was repealed by the Amending Act, the relevant provision was as follows : " (2 ). Where there are persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or scheduled Tribes residing within the Janapada Panchayat area such number of seats of Sarpanchas is the Janpada Panchayat area shall be reserved by the Collector by an order for the members of Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes as shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of Gram Panchayats in the Janapada panchayat area as the population of the persons belonging to the scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the Janapada Panchayat area bears to the total population of such area. Such reserved seats shall be allotted serially to such Gram Panchayats in which the population of such castes or tribes are mostly centralized. The aforesaid provision was, however, substituted by the Amending Act as follows : "15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, (2 ). The State Government shall, taking into account the population of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes in the State and the density of population of the such castes and tribes in different areas of the State, by Notification, reserve, the seats of Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats for them. " The aforesaid provision does not contain any guideline for determining the number of seats to be reserved. It only stipulates that the State Government shall take into account the population of the persons belonging to the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State and the density of population of such castes and tribes in different areas of the State. It was demonstrated before us on behalf of the petitioners that the criteria of reservation applied by the State government differed from distict to district. It was demonstrated before us on behalf of the petitioners that the criteria of reservation applied by the State government differed from distict to district. It was also brought to our notice that whereas the Collector was empowered by section 15 (3) of the Act to reserve seats of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats for women, that power in respect of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was delegated to the State Government and this fact has resulted in reserving the seat of Sarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat for women as well as for Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes. Section 15 (2) of the Act gives blanket power to the State government to reserve any number of seats of Sarpanchas. The guidelines provided by section 15 (2) are quite vague and there is no precise guidance as to how the power is to b exercised either in the Act or the rules. No provision of the act was brought to our notice to show that the Legislature had retained control over the delegate. We may usefully refer to the following observations of the supreme Court in M/s. Devidas Gopal Krishna vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1967 SC 1895 : "an overburdened Legislature or one controlled by a powerful executive, may unduly overstep the limits of delegation. It may not lay down any policy at all; it may declare its policy in vague and general terms; it may not set down any standard for the guidance of the executive, it may confer an arbitrary power on the executive to change or modify the policy laid down by it without reserving for itself any control over subordinate legislation. This self-effacement of legislative power in favour of another agency either in whole or in part, is beyond the permissible limits of delegation. " In our opinion, therefore, section 15 (2) of the Act is liable to be struck down on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. ( 14. This self-effacement of legislative power in favour of another agency either in whole or in part, is beyond the permissible limits of delegation. " In our opinion, therefore, section 15 (2) of the Act is liable to be struck down on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. ( 14. ) IT was further contended that while taking into account population for the purpose of clauses (2) and (3) of section 15 of the Act, the provisions of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976, have not been observed and that even though the relevant figures of 1981 census have not been published, the same have been taken into account contrary to the explanation to section 15. It is, however, not necessary to consider this aspect of the matter, because it does not affect the validity of the provisions of section 15. Failure to comply with the provisions of section 15 of the Act can be canvassed in an election petition. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion in that behalf. ( 15. ) AS regards Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the validity of Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 9 (2) and Rule 14 of the M. P. Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1988. We are not dealing with the contention regarding non-compliance with Rules, because these contentions can be canvassed in an election petition and do not affect the question of validity of Rules. Rule 4 empowers the Collector to determine wards in which seats shall be reserved for women and for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a Gram panchayat. It was contended that there was no provision in the Rule for inviting objections. Absence of such a provision will not, in our opinion, invalidate the rule. Rule 5 (1) lays down that such Gram Panchayat or Gram Panchayats in which seats of Sarpanch shall be reserved for members of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes shall be determined by the State Government. As we have held that section 15 (2) of the Act delegating powers to the State Government to determine seats of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat reserved for members of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. Rule 5 (1) will also have to be struck down along with section 15 (2 ). As we have held that section 15 (2) of the Act delegating powers to the State Government to determine seats of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat reserved for members of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. Rule 5 (1) will also have to be struck down along with section 15 (2 ). Regarding Rule 9 (2), it was contended that the said provision was void as it was inconsistent with section 30 of the Advocates Act. Reliance was placed on the decision in H. S. Srinivasa Raghavachar etc. vs. State of Karnataka and others. AIR 1987 SC 1518 . Now the decision in H. S. Srinivasa Raghvachar etc. vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the supreme Court has approved the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur and another vs. The State of Haryana and another, AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana 221, laying down that a provision in the State Act which bars the appearance of Advocates before any Tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence, is repugnant to section 30 of the Advocates Act and hence is invalid. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to satisfy us that the Officer holding summary enquiry into the claims or objections preferred to the entries in the Voters List was legally authorised to take evidence. Rule 9 (2), therefore, cannot be held to be invalid. As regards Rule 14 which empowers the Collector to appoint any person to be a Returning officer, it was contended that it suffered from the vice that no guidelines were provided for holding a person fit for appointment as a Returning Officer. In our opinion, absence of guidelines would not invalidate that Rule. It is presumed that the Collector, while exercising power under Rule 14, will appoint a person who will be able to discharge the duties of a Returning Officer. In case such person fails to discharge those duties in accordance with law, a legitimate grievance in that behalf can be made in an election petition. Rule 14 cannot be held to be invalid. ( 16. ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hold as follows : - (i ). In case such person fails to discharge those duties in accordance with law, a legitimate grievance in that behalf can be made in an election petition. Rule 14 cannot be held to be invalid. ( 16. ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hold as follows : - (i ). The provisions of sections 11, 15, 22, 23 and 27 ot the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, as amended by the M. P. Panchayat (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam (26 of 1988), are not violative of the provisions of Article 14 or 15 (1) of the Constitution of India and hence are not void. (ii ). Sub-section (2) of section 15 of the M. P. Panchayat adhiniyam, 1981, as amended by Act No. 26 of 1988, suffers from the vice of excessive delegation and is, therefore, void and accordingly struck down. (iii ). Rules 4,9 (2) and 14 of the M. P. Gram Panchayat Election and co-option Rules, 1988, are not invalid, but Rule 5 (1) is held to be invalid and is accordingly struck down. (iv ). Election of Panchas of Gram Panchayats held in accordance with M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, as amended by Act No. 26 of 1988, is not set aside. The interim stay, if any, granted in those petitions, is vacated. The State Government shall be at liberty to take further steps with regard to election of Panchas in accordance with law. (v ). Elections of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats reserved for women are upheld, but elections of other Sarpanchas of Gram panchayats held during the pendency of the petitions, are set aside. The state Government is directed to hold elections of these Sarpanchas afresh after suitably amending the provisions of the Act by providing for reservation of seats of Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in accordance with law. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of these petitions. Outstanding security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Order accordingly.