In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, the Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti has been directed to be reinstated. This ruling follows a legal battle that ensued after a motion of ‘No Confidence’ was initiated against the Pramukh. The judgment bears implications on the functioning of Panchayats and upholds the principles of governance. Stay tuned for more updates on this crucial case.
Facts
- The writ petition filed by the appellant was heard by the Single Judge of the High Court.
- The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by negating the arguments presented by the respondent.
- The appellant felt aggrieved by this decision and filed an appeal by special leave.
- The case was taken up by the Division Bench in response to the appeal filed by the appellant.
- The Division Bench heard the appeal in the form of a writ appeal, marked as M.A. No.26 of 2017.
- Quorum for a special meeting regarding motion of no confidence against Pramukh is two-thirds of total membership, minimum four members of Panchayat Samiti.
- High Court directed Executive Officer to act in accordance with law based on the judgment.
- Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by RLC and set aside the decision of the Executive Officer.
- Referred to relevant Articles of the Indian Constitution regarding Panchayats.
- Determined that the MP representing the Union Territory was not eligible to participate in the special meeting and vote on a No Confidence Motion.
- Cited specific sections of the Regulation and Rules to support the decision.
- Relied on previous court decisions in related cases for justification.
Also Read: Balancing Justice: Case Summary of C.P. No. 16/2017
Analysis
- The State is mandated to constitute Panchayats at the village, intermediate, and district levels as per the provisions.
- An exception is made for States with a population not exceeding twenty lakhs for not having Panchayats at the intermediate level.
- The Regulation specifies the process for the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh within the Panchayat Samiti.
- Specific reservations are to be made for Scheduled Tribes and women in the offices of Pramukhs.
- The process for initiating and carrying a motion of ‘No Confidence’ against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh is outlined in detail.
- Meetings should stick to the agenda, and only the listed business can be conducted.
- Quorum requirements are set, with specific rules on counting fractions for determining quorum.
- Representation of various members within the Panchayat Samiti is outlined, including provisions for the Chairpersons of different levels of Panchayats.
- The Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act of 1992 aimed to ensure self-governance at various levels of Panchayats.
- The amendment requires that Pradhans are represented in the Panchayat Samiti by rotation, and Member of Parliament representing the Union Territory also has voting rights.
- The provisions in the Regulation do not exclude the Member of Parliament from participating in the special meeting and voting on a ‘No Confidence Motion’.
- The law as enacted in the Regulation does not deviate from the constitutional scheme of Part-IX of the Constitution.
- The composition of the Panchayat Samiti includes all members, not just the directly elected ones, in matters of ‘No Confidence Motion’.
- The quorum for a special meeting includes all members of the Panchayat Samiti, regardless of being elected or ex-officio members, as per the Regulation and Rules.
- The Regulation and Rules do not exclude any members, including those referred to in Section 107(3), from participating in the discussion and voting on a ‘No Confidence Motion’.
- The High Court considered specific provisions in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 which exclude the right to participate and vote on a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha.
- The Regulation being discussed permits all members to participate and vote on the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh.
- The interpretation of the provision does not violate the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
- Article 243C does not specify the mode of removal of the Chairperson of Panchayat Samiti through a ‘No Confidence Motion’.
- State Legislature is empowered to make laws on the subject of removal of the Chairperson.
- The decision of the Karnataka High Court emphasizes that provisions for recall of elected representatives should be practical and feasible, aligning with Indian electoral processes.
- Section 107(3) of the Regulation includes elected representatives, allowing their participation and voting on the ‘No Confidence Motion’.
- Relevant case laws such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, Usha Bharti, and Delhi Transport Corporation are not extensively discussed due to the explicit provisions in the Regulation and Rules.
- The decision in Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary regarding removal of elected office bearers through a motion of no confidence does not add further insight in the context of the existing Regulation and Rules.
- The decision in Pratap Chandra Mehta is deemed irrelevant for interpreting the provisions in the Regulation and Rules under consideration.
- The decision in Mohan Lal Tripathi was also mentioned during the case.
- The follow-up action taken against the appellant, asking him to step down, is deemed non est in law.
- The motion of no confidence against the appellant could not have proceeded further according to law.
- The meeting convened on 2 January, 2017 was dissolved due to only three members remaining present.
Decision
- The appeal is allowed, and the High Court’s judgment is set aside
- The writ petition by the appellant is dismissed
- The appellant is directed to be reinstated to the post of Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti
- A meeting regarding the ‘No Confidence Motion’ was scheduled and would be subject to the outcome of this petition
- No costs are awarded
- District Administration to ensure compliance with the directions within one week and submit a compliance report to the Court
- Any steps taken after the Executive Officer’s order on 2 January 2017 are considered invalid as per this order
Also Read: Redefining Pre-Deposit Requirements: Ideal Detonators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Title: SEEMA SARKAR Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Case Number: C.A. No.-004547-004547 / 2019
