Date of the Judgment: May 01, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 447
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a Member of Parliament (MP), who is an ex-officio member of a Panchayat Samiti, be counted towards the quorum for a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, which has significant implications for local governance in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997, specifically concerning the inclusion of an MP in the quorum for a no-confidence motion. The bench consisted of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi.
Case Background
On December 19, 2007, a no-confidence motion was moved against the appellant, the Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti, by respondent No. 6. The Samiti comprised six members: five directly elected members and one MP representing the Union Territory. A meeting to discuss the motion was scheduled for January 2, 2017. However, only three elected members were present at the scheduled time. The Executive Officer dissolved the meeting due to lack of quorum, considering the MP as a member of the Samiti.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 19, 2007 | No-confidence motion moved against the Pramukh. |
| January 2, 2017 | Special meeting scheduled for no-confidence motion; meeting dissolved due to lack of quorum. |
| January 2, 2017 | Executive Officer issued communication regarding dissolution of meeting. |
| December 22, 2017 | Supreme Court issued notice on the matter. |
| December 26, 2017 | Deputy Commissioner removed the appellant from the post of Pramukh. |
| January 15, 2018 | Supreme Court ordered that any election held would be subject to the result of the special leave petition. |
| January 19, 2018 | Respondent No. 6 elected as Pramukh. |
| January 31, 2018 | Supreme Court requested the Attorney General for India to assist the Court. |
| May 01, 2019 | Supreme Court delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
Respondent No. 6 challenged the Executive Officer’s decision in the High Court at Calcutta, which initially dismissed the writ petition, holding that the MP was to be counted for quorum. The Division Bench reversed this decision, stating that the MP was not eligible to participate or vote in a no-confidence motion. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:
- Article 243B of the Constitution of India: This article mandates the constitution of Panchayats at the village, intermediate, and district levels.
- Article 243C of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the composition of Panchayats, including the representation of various members and their voting rights. Specifically, clause (5)(b) states that the Chairperson of a Panchayat at the intermediate level shall be elected by and from amongst the elected members thereof.
- Section 107 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994: This section specifies the composition of the Panchayat Samiti, including directly elected members and the MP representing the Union Territory, who has the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti.
- Section 112 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994: This section deals with the election of the Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, specifying that they are to be elected by and from amongst the elected members of the Panchayat Samiti.
- Section 117 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994: This section outlines the procedure for a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, stating that the motion must be carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti.
- Rule 9(3)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997: This rule specifies that not less than two-thirds of the total membership is necessary for a special meeting called for a no-confidence motion.
- Rule 21 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997: This rule details the procedure for moving a no-confidence motion, including the quorum requirements.
These provisions are crucial in determining the eligibility of the MP to be counted for quorum and to vote on a no-confidence motion. The constitutional framework under Part IX of the Constitution aims at democratic decentralization and self-governance at the grass-root level.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the MP, being a member of the Panchayat Samiti as per Section 107(3)(b) of the Regulation, should be counted towards the quorum for a no-confidence motion.
- The appellant contended that the term “total membership” in Section 117 of the Regulation and Rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules includes all members of the Panchayat Samiti, not just the directly elected ones.
- The appellant relied on the explicit language of Section 107(3)(b) of the Regulation, which grants the MP the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- Respondent No. 6 argued that the MP, not being a directly elected member, should not be included in the quorum for a no-confidence motion.
- The respondent contended that the right to vote in a no-confidence motion should be limited to those who elected the Pramukh, i.e., the directly elected members.
- The respondent relied on the principle that only those who elect an office bearer should have the right to remove them through a no-confidence motion.
Additional Solicitor General’s Submissions:
- The Additional Solicitor General argued that since the MP is not directly elected, they should not participate in a no-confidence motion.
- It was argued that the constitutional silence on the removal of a chairperson implies that only those who elected the chairperson should vote on a no-confidence motion.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Appellant) | Sub-Submission (Respondent) | Sub-Submission (Additional Solicitor General) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion of MP in Quorum | MP is a member under Section 107(3)(b) and should be counted for quorum. | MP is not directly elected and should not be included in the quorum. | MP is not directly elected and should not participate in no-confidence motion. |
| Interpretation of “Total Membership” | “Total membership” includes all members, not just directly elected ones. | “Total membership” should be limited to directly elected members. | Constitutional silence implies only those who elected the chairperson should vote. |
| Voting Rights on No-Confidence Motion | MP has the right to vote in meetings as per Section 107(3)(b). | Voting rights should be limited to those who elected the Pramukh. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, who is also an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti, should be included for reckoning the quorum of a special meeting regarding a motion of no confidence against the Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti.
- Whether the MP can exercise his/her vote on the ‘No Confidence Motion’ within the meaning of the provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the MP should be included in the quorum for a no-confidence motion. | Yes, the MP should be included. | The term “total membership” in the Regulation and Rules includes all members, including the MP. |
| Whether the MP can vote on a no-confidence motion. | Yes, the MP can vote. | The law does not exclude any member, including the MP, from voting on a no-confidence motion. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Mehta Vs. Sanwal Chand Singhvi and Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 409] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The case dealt with nominated members in a municipality, which is different from the present case. |
| State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Lakshmappa Kallappa Balaganur and Ors. [(2001) 3 KLJ 498] | Karnataka High Court | Distinguished. The case was based on specific provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, which are different from the present case. |
| Article 243C of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Explained the composition of Panchayats and the election of chairpersons. |
| Article 243R of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Discussed in the context of the Ramesh Mehta case, highlighting differences between Panchayat and Municipality compositions. |
| Section 107 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 | Interpreted the composition of the Panchayat Samiti, including the MP’s right to vote. |
| Section 112 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 | Explained the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh by elected members. |
| Section 117 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 | Interpreted the procedure for a no-confidence motion and the required majority. |
| Rule 9(3)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997 | Explained the quorum requirements for special meetings. |
| Rule 21 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997 | Explained the procedure for moving a no-confidence motion. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| MP should be included in the quorum. | Accepted. The Court held that the term “total membership” includes all members, including the MP. |
| MP should not be included in the quorum. | Rejected. The Court found no basis to exclude the MP from the quorum. |
| MP should not vote on a no-confidence motion. | Rejected. The Court held that the law does not exclude any member from voting on a no-confidence motion. |
| Only those who elect the Pramukh should vote on a no-confidence motion. | Rejected. The Court held that the law explicitly allows all members to vote. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Ramesh Mehta Vs. Sanwal Chand Singhvi and Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 409]* | Distinguished. The case dealt with nominated members in a municipality, which is different from the present case. The court noted that the present case concerns a Panchayat Samiti where the MP is a member by virtue of Section 107(3)(b) of the Regulation. |
| State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Lakshmappa Kallappa Balaganur and Ors. [(2001) 3 KLJ 498]* | Distinguished. The case was based on specific provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, which are different from the present case. The court clarified that the provisions under consideration in the present case are inclusive and allow all members to participate and vote. |
| Article 243C of the Constitution of India* | Explained. The court clarified that while Article 243C(5)(b) specifies that the chairperson is elected by and from amongst the elected members, it does not restrict the removal process to only elected members. |
| Section 107 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994* | Interpreted. The court emphasized that Section 107(3)(b) explicitly grants the MP the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti. |
| Section 117 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994* | Interpreted. The court noted that Section 117 does not exclude any member from voting on a no-confidence motion, and the motion must be carried by a two-thirds majority of the “total number” of members. |
| Rule 9(3)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997* | Interpreted. The court held that Rule 9(3)(b) specifies that the quorum for a special meeting is two-thirds of the “total membership,” which includes all members of the Panchayat Samiti. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit language of the governing statutes and rules. The Court emphasized that the term “total membership” in Section 117 of the Regulation and Rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules includes all members of the Panchayat Samiti, not just the directly elected ones. The Court also noted that Section 107(3)(b) of the Regulation explicitly grants the MP the right to vote in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti.
The Court rejected the argument that only those who elect the Pramukh should have the right to remove them, stating that the law does not impose such a restriction. The Court also distinguished the cases cited by the High Court, noting that those cases were based on different statutory provisions.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Explicit language of the governing statutes and rules | 50% |
| Inclusion of all members in “total membership” | 30% |
| Rejection of the argument that only those who elect the Pramukh should have the right to remove them | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
The court’s reasoning for each issue is as follows:
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s judgment has the following practical implications:
- The Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is to be counted towards the quorum for a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti.
- The MP also has the right to vote on such a no-confidence motion.
- The term “total membership” in the relevant regulations and rules includes all members of the Panchayat Samiti, not just the directly elected ones.
- The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the explicit language of the governing statutes and rules.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The decision of the Executive Officer dated 2nd January, 2017, dissolving the meeting for want of quorum, is upheld.
- All steps taken after the order of the Executive Officer dated 2nd January, 2017, are to be treated as non-est.
- The appellant is to be reinstated to the post of Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti.
- The District Administration shall take follow-up steps forthwith and ensure compliance of the directions not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit a compliance report in the Registry of this Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “total membership” in the context of a no-confidence motion in a Panchayat Samiti includes all members, both directly elected and ex-officio, such as the Member of Parliament. This clarifies the interpretation of Section 117 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994, and Rule 9(3)(b) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that the explicit language of the governing statutory provisions must be followed and that common-law principles cannot override these provisions. This judgment clarifies the position of law and settles the issue of who should be counted for quorum and voting in a no-confidence motion in a Panchayat Samiti.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and upholding the decision of the Executive Officer. The Court clarified that the Member of Parliament (MP) is to be included in the quorum and is eligible to vote on a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti. This decision provides clarity on the interpretation of the relevant regulations and rules, ensuring that all members of the Panchayat Samiti, including ex-officio members, are counted in the quorum and have the right to vote in such matters. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated as the Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti.