Supreme Court clarifies procedure for no-confidence motion against Sarpanch: Subhash vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar (2021) INSC 123

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 123
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch, once passed by the Gram Panchayat, lapse if not immediately ratified by a Special Gram Sabha? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the procedural requirements for such motions. This case revolves around a no-confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch and the subsequent legal challenges. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The respondent No. 1, Surekha Hanumant Bankar, was directly elected as the Sarpanch of Karajkheda village in Osmanabad district on 17 October 2017. Subsequently, a no-confidence motion was moved against her by the members of the Gram Panchayat, which was passed on 19 October 2020. The Collector, on 31 December 2020, directed a Special Gram Sabha to be held to ratify the no-confidence motion. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, however, set aside both the Collector’s order and the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court by the appellants.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent No. 1 challenged the no-confidence motion before the Collector, who directed a Special Gram Sabha for ratification. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, which allowed the writ petition and set aside both the resolution and the Collector’s order. The appellants, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 35-1A of the Village Panchayat Act, which outlines the procedure for no-confidence motions against a directly elected Sarpanch. The relevant portion of Section 35-1A of the Village Panchayat Act states:

“35-1A. In respect of the panchayat to which the Sarpanch is directly elected under Section 30A-1A, the provisions of this section shall apply with the following modifications:-
(a)in sub-section(1) for the words “one-third” the words “two-third” shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section(3) for the portion beginning with the words “if the motion” and ending with the words “against the Sarpanch” the following portion shall be substituted, namely:-
“if the motion of no-confidence is carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, and ratified before the special Gram Sabha by the secret ballot in the present and under the Chairmanship of the Officer appointed for the purpose by the Collector, shall forthwith stop, exercising all the powers and, performing all the functions and duties of the office and thereupon such powers, functions and duties shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch.”
(c)for the fourth proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-
“Provided also that, no such motion of no-confidence shall be brought within a period of two years from the date of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and before the six months preceding the date on which the term of panchayat expires:
Provided also that, if the no-confidence motion fails, then no motion shall be brought before the passage of time of next two years.”

This section specifies that a no-confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch must be passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total members and ratified by a secret ballot in a Special Gram Sabha, chaired by an officer appointed by the Collector.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court should not have set aside the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat.
• They contended that the High Court should have directed the follow-up steps as required by the Collector’s order, which mandated ratification of the no-confidence motion by a Special Gram Sabha.
• They asserted that the Collector’s direction was in line with the Village Panchayat Act, including the amended Section 35-1A.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the resolution was moved on 19 October 2020, and according to guidelines issued by the Rural Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, on 20 October 2020, it should have been placed before the Special Gram Sabha within 10 days of the Collector’s order.
• Since that period had expired, the respondent contended that the process could not continue further, and the High Court’s decision should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

• Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat.
• Whether the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat lapsed due to delay in convening the Special Gram Sabha.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Collector’s order. The Court held that the no-confidence motion passed on 19 October 2020, and confirmed by the Collector on 31 December 2020, should be taken forward. A Special Gram Sabha must be convened to ratify the motion. The Court observed that there was no provision in the Village Panchayat Act stating that a resolution lapses if not placed before the Gram Sabha within a specific timeframe. The court stated, “Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is unable to point out any provision in the Act which postulates that if the proposed resolution is not placed before the Gram Sabha within specified time, the same would lapse in law.” The Court further noted, “Thus, in absence of such a provision, it cannot be assumed that the resolution had lapsed in law, merely because of some direction issued by the concerned department of Government of Maharashtra.” The Court also held, “The respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of that situation by placing reliance on administrative instructions dated 31.12.2020.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any legal provision in the Village Panchayat Act that stipulates a time limit for placing a no-confidence resolution before the Gram Sabha, after it has been passed by the Panchayat. The Court emphasized that administrative instructions cannot override the statutory provisions. The Court also noted that the respondent No. 1 had challenged the resolution and the Collector’s order, and that the delay was partly due to these legal challenges. The Court was primarily guided by the statutory scheme and the need to ensure that the process of no-confidence motion is completed as per law.

Key Takeaways

• A no-confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch, once passed by the Gram Panchayat, does not lapse if there is a delay in convening the Special Gram Sabha for ratification, unless specifically provided by law.
• Administrative guidelines cannot override the provisions of the Village Panchayat Act.
• The process of no-confidence motion must be completed as per the statutory scheme.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Collector to convene a Special Gram Sabha forthwith to consider the ratification of the no-confidence motion passed on 19 October 2020. The Court also ordered that until the ratification process is completed, the post of Sarpanch be held by the Upa-Sarpanch or as per the Collector’s order.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies that the absence of a specific timeline in the Village Panchayat Act for convening a Special Gram Sabha does not invalidate a no-confidence motion. This clarifies the position of law and reinforces the primacy of the statutory provisions over administrative instructions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Subhash & Ors. vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar & Ors. clarifies the procedure for no-confidence motions against a directly elected Sarpanch. The Court emphasized that the absence of a specific timeline for convening a Special Gram Sabha does not invalidate a no-confidence motion, and that administrative guidelines cannot override the statutory provisions. The judgment ensures that the process of no-confidence motion is completed as per the law.

Category:

Local Self-Governance, Panchayat Law, Section 35-1A, Village Panchayat Act

FAQ

Q: What is a no-confidence motion in the context of a Gram Panchayat?
A: A no-confidence motion is a process where members of a Gram Panchayat vote to remove the Sarpanch (village head) from their position, if they lose the confidence of the members.

Q: What is the procedure for a no-confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch?
A: For a directly elected Sarpanch, the no-confidence motion must be passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total members of the Panchayat and then ratified by a secret ballot in a Special Gram Sabha, chaired by an officer appointed by the Collector.

Q: What happens if there is a delay in convening the Special Gram Sabha?
A: According to this judgment, a delay in convening the Special Gram Sabha does not invalidate the no-confidence motion, as long as there is no specific provision in the Village Panchayat Act stating that such a delay would cause the motion to lapse.

Q: Can administrative guidelines override the provisions of the Village Panchayat Act?
A: No, administrative guidelines cannot override the statutory provisions of the Village Panchayat Act.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s final order in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Collector to convene a Special Gram Sabha to consider the ratification of the no-confidence motion. Until then, the Upa-Sarpanch would hold the post of Sarpanch.