Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Elected Members in No-Confidence Motion: Ram Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. (24 April 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 368
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.
Can a member of a local governing body, who hasn’t taken the official oath, participate in a no-confidence motion against the head of that body? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving a Kshettra Panchayat in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether elected members who had not taken the oath of office could be counted towards the quorum required to move a no-confidence motion. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Lokur authoring the majority opinion and Justice Gupta providing a dissenting opinion on the main legal issue.

Case Background

The case revolves around the election of the Pramukh (head) of the Kshettra Panchayat, Jasrana, District Ferozabad (U.P.). Elections were held on 7th February 2016, under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. The results were declared on the same day, with 63 candidates being declared elected.

On 18th March 2016, the first meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat took place, where the elected members chose Ram Pal Singh (the petitioner) as the Pramukh. A dispute arose regarding whether all 63 elected members took the oath of office on that day. The petitioner claimed that 17 members did not take the oath, while the contesting private respondents and the State of U.P. asserted that all 63 members did.

Subsequently, a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 12th June 2017, signed by 39 elected members, including the 17 who the petitioner claimed had not taken the oath. The petitioner argued that since only 26 members who had taken the oath had signed the motion, it did not meet the requirement of being signed by at least half of the total number of elected members.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (referred to as the Adhiniyam) and the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Oath of Office of Adhyaksha or Pramukh Etc.) Rules, 1994 (referred to as the Rules).

Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam outlines the composition of a Kshettra Panchayat, which includes a Pramukh and elected members. Section 6(1)(b) specifies that elected members are chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies.

Rule 2(2) of the Rules defines “Members” as those elected under Section 6(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam.

Rule 3(3) of the Rules states that members of the Kshettra Panchayat must take an oath before taking their seats for the first time. It reads:

“3(3). The members of Zila Panchayat and Kshettra Panchayat before taking their seats for the first time as such members shall make or subscribe oath or affirmation in the case of member of Zila Panchayat before the Adhyaksha and in his absence before the Mukhya Adhikari and in the case of members of the Kshettra Panchayat before the Pramukh and in his absence before the Khand Vikas Adhikari in the form set out in the Appendix.”

Section 15 of the Adhiniyam deals with motions of no-confidence against the Pramukh. Section 15(2) requires that a written notice of intention to make the motion must be signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat.

“15. Motion of non-confidence in Pramukh – (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections.
(2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat for the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat.”

Arguments

The petitioner, Ram Pal Singh, argued that 17 of the 63 elected members did not take the oath of office on 18th March 2016, and therefore, should not be considered as valid members for the purpose of the no-confidence motion. He contended that the no-confidence motion was signed by only 26 valid members (39 total signatories minus 13 invalid signatories), which is less than half of the total number of 63 elected members, rendering the motion invalid under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam.

The contesting private respondents (elected members) and the State of U.P. argued that all 63 elected members took the oath of office on 18th March 2016, and that the no-confidence motion was validly signed by 39 members, which is more than half of the total number of elected members. They also submitted that the 17 members were paid their daily and traveling allowances for subsequent meetings, which would only have been possible if they had taken the oath of office.

The petitioner submitted that the 13 elected members who had not taken the oath of office were not elected members for the purpose of signing the No Confidence Motion, but for the purposes of the composition of the Kshettra Panchayat they were elected members thereby maintaining the strength of the Kshettra Panchayat at 63.

The contesting private respondents submitted that the members were paid their daily allowance as well as their travelling allowance for subsequent meetings and this payment could have been made only if they had attended the meetings of the Kshettra Panchayat after taking the oath of office.

The petitioner argued that it would be illogical for the 13 elected members to sign the no-confidence motion if they could not vote in the Panchayat because they had not taken the oath of office.

The State of U.P. submitted that all 63 members of the Kshettra Panchayat had taken the oath of office on 18th March, 2016.

The Deputy Collector, Shikhohabad stated that a perusal of the attendance register of 18th March, 2016 indicates that all 63 members of the Kshettra Panchayat had signed it and that oath was also taken by all the elected members on 18th March, 2016.

The petitioner submitted that a communication of 28th March, 2016 was issued by the Block Development Officer, Jasrana, addressed to the 17 elected members requiring them to remain present in his office on 31st March, 2016 to take the oath of office.

The petitioner also submitted that as a follow up to the communication dated 28th March, 2016, 3 of the 17 elected members took the oath of office on 31st March, 2016.

The respondents submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that any communication was sent to the 17 elected members on 28th March, 2016. There is no record of the communication having been despatched nor is there any document showing receipt of the communication by the 17 elected members.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the 17 elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat took the oath of office on 18th March 2016.
2. Whether the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was a numerically valid requisition.
3. Whether an elected member of a Kshettra Panchayat, who has not subscribed to the oath of office, can sign or move a no-confidence motion against Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 6(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961
• Rule 2(2) and Rule 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Oath of Office of Adhyaksha or Pramukh Etc.) Rules, 1994
• Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961
• Article 188 of the Constitution of India
• Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994
• Article 60 of the Constitution of India
• Article 69 of the Constitution of India
• Article 84 of the Constitution of India

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Authorities

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Bhupindra Nath Basu v. Ranajit Singh Bahadur [A.I.R. 1914 Calcutta 152]: The Court followed this case to hold that the mere omission to take an oath of allegiance does not ipso facto cause a member to vacate his seat.

✓ Pashupati Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain & Ors. [(1984) 2 SCC 404]: The Court approved the law laid down in Bhupindra Nath Basu and held that as long as the name of the elected member appears in the notification, that member can take part in all ‘non-legislative activities’.

✓ Smt. Kamla Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2014 (8) ADJ 525]: The Court relied on this case where a similar situation arose and the High Court rejected the contention that members who had not taken oath could not participate in a no confidence motion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual evidence presented by the State of U.P., which indicated that all 63 elected members had taken the oath of office on 18th March 2016. The Court also relied on the established legal principle that an elected member does not cease to be a member simply because they have not taken the oath of office. The Court emphasized that while taking the oath is a solemn occasion, the failure to do so does not invalidate the status of an elected member for all purposes, particularly for signing a no-confidence motion. The Court also noted that the law does not prohibit an elected member from being a signatory to a no-confidence motion, even if they cannot participate in the proceedings of the Panchayat due to not taking the oath of office.

The Court also observed that the sanctity of the oath of office should be taken seriously and that failure to do so ought to result in serious consequences, such as the seat being declared vacant after a specified time. The Court also noted that an unimpeachable record of the elected representatives taking the oath of office should be maintained by the concerned officials of the State Government.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Deepak Gupta focused on the interpretation of Rule 3(3) of the Rules, arguing that a member must subscribe to the oath before they can take part in the sitting of the Panchayat. Justice Gupta contended that a no-confidence motion is part of the proceedings of the Panchayat and therefore, members who have not taken the oath cannot sign such a motion. However, Justice Gupta agreed with the majority that the petition should be dismissed due to the disputed question of facts.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Court relied on the counter affidavit filed by the State and the communications from the Block Development Officer and the Deputy Collector to conclude that all 63 elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat took the oath of office on 18th March 2016.
• The Court held that an elected member does not cease to be a member of the Kshettra Panchayat if he or she does not take the oath of office.
• The Court noted that the only consequence of not taking the oath is that the elected member cannot take a seat in the Kshettra Panchayat and participate in its proceedings.
• The Court stated that there is no prohibition against an elected member from being a signatory to a no-confidence motion.
• The Court referred to previous judgments of the Calcutta High Court, the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court to support the view that an elected member can take part in all non-legislative activities of an elected member even if they have not taken the oath of office.
• The Court noted that while it may appear illogical that a member who has not taken the oath of office can sign a no-confidence motion, there is no challenge to the provisions of the Adhiniyam.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In other words, a person duly elected to a Kshettra Panchayat under Section 6(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam is described as and remains an ‘elected member’ and if that ‘elected member’ does not take the oath of office, he or she does not cease to be an ‘elected member’.”

“The only consequence is that the ‘elected member’ cannot take a seat in the Kshettra Panchayat and therefore cannot participate in the proceedings of the Panchayat.”

“That apart, there is nothing in the law to indicate that an elected member ceases to be a member of the Kshettra Panchayat if he or she does not take the oath of office.”

Justice Deepak Gupta gave a dissenting opinion stating that the signing of a no-confidence motion is part of the business of the House and that those members who have not taken oath and are, therefore, not entitled to vote at such no-confidence motion, cannot be held to be entitled or eligible to sign such motion. However, Justice Gupta agreed with the majority that the petition should be dismissed due to the disputed question of facts.

Key Takeaways

• An elected member of a Kshettra Panchayat remains an ‘elected member’ even if they have not taken the oath of office.
• Failure to take the oath of office only prevents an elected member from taking a seat and participating in the proceedings of the Panchayat.
• An elected member who has not taken the oath of office can still sign a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh.
• The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining an unimpeachable record of elected representatives taking the oath of office.
• The Court suggested that failure to take the oath of office within a specified time should result in serious consequences, such as the seat being declared vacant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. clarifies the status of elected members who have not taken the oath of office, particularly in the context of no-confidence motions. The Court’s decision underscores that being an ‘elected member’ is distinct from the act of taking the oath, and that the latter is primarily relevant to participation in the proceedings of the Panchayat. The ruling has significant implications for local governance, ensuring that the democratic process of moving a no-confidence motion is not hampered by technicalities related to the oath of office.

The Court also highlighted the need for proper record-keeping and suggested that failure to take the oath within a specified time should have consequences. This part of the judgment is a reminder to the State Government to maintain proper records of the elected representatives taking the oath of office.