Supreme Court Upholds Multi-Member Wards in Gujarat Municipal Elections: Parmar Samantsinh vs. State of Gujarat (2021) INSC 123 (24 February 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 123
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a single ward in a municipal corporation be represented by multiple members? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to municipal elections. This judgment clarifies the powers of State legislatures in determining the composition of municipal bodies and the representation of various groups within them. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, specifically regarding the provision for multi-member wards in municipal elections. The petitioners argued that the Constitution mandates a one-member-per-ward system, similar to elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The challenge also extended to certain rules and notifications issued by the State of Gujarat concerning the delimitation of wards and the allocation of reserved seats.

The primary contention was that the multi-member ward system undermines the empowerment of women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, as a single representative from these groups would have a stronger voice in a one-member ward. The petitioners sought a declaration that the relevant sections of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and related rules were unconstitutional, along with a stay on the election process.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court had previously dismissed a similar challenge, citing an earlier Division Bench judgment. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 29.07.2015, noting that the issues were covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Pankajsinh Waghela v. State Election Commission and others.

However, in a separate case, the High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an ordinance that altered election procedures and directed the State Election Commission to hold elections. The High Court on 21.10.2015, declared Section 7A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, Section 8A of Gujarat Municipalities Act and Section 257 of the Act brought about by Ordinance No.3 of 2015 as unconstitutional and void. The High Court also set aside the action of the State Election Commission for postponement of the election of all local bodies in the State and directed the Election Commission to initiate process of holding the election of the local bodies forthwith.

These conflicting judgments led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court, which consolidated the matters to address the core constitutional questions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Article 243R of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the composition of Municipalities, stating that seats shall be filled by direct election from territorial constituencies known as wards. It also allows for State legislatures to provide for representation of persons with special knowledge, members of Parliament, and chairpersons of committees.
• Article 243S of the Constitution of India: This article pertains to the constitution and composition of Wards Committees. It specifies that a member of the Municipality representing a ward shall be a member of the Wards Committee and outlines the process for electing the Chairperson of the Committee.
• Section 5(3)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: This section empowers the State Government to determine the number of wards, councilors, and reserved seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and women.
• Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: This section deals with the composition of Wards Committees, specifying that each committee shall consist of councilors representing a ward within its territorial area.
• Rules 4 and 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (the Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994: These rules, as amended, provide for multi-member wards with specific reservation of seats for women and other categories.
• Rule 2(b) of Gujarat Municipal Corporation’s Ward Committees Functions, Duties, Territorial Areas and Procedure for Transaction of Business Rules, 2007: This rule defines the “Chairperson” as the person elected by the members of the Wards Committee.

The Court also considered Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which grants State legislatures the power to legislate on local government matters. The Court noted that any law made by the State Legislature has to be subject to the provisions of the Constitution.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

Arguments of the Appellants (Petitioners)

• Constitutional Mandate for One Member Per Ward: The appellants argued that Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution, when read together, mandate that each ward should be represented by only one member. They emphasized that the use of the terms “a member” and “the member” in Article 243S indicates a singular representation.
• Inconsistency with the Constitution: They contended that Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and other related provisions, are inconsistent with Article 243S of the Constitution and the principle of one member per ward.
• Undermining Empowerment: The appellants submitted that multi-member wards dilute the empowerment of women and other weaker sections. They argued that a single representative from these groups would have a stronger voice in a one-member ward.
• Procedural Irregularity: The appellants argued that the notification dated 04.12.2014 was issued before the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of draft rules on 27.11.2014, which was not in accordance with law.
• Thematic Consistency: The appellants argued that there has to be thematic consistency while interpreting the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution. The thematic flow of the Constitution is of election of only one member from one ward constituency/unit of representation.

Arguments of the Respondents (State of Gujarat and State Election Commission)

• No Constitutional Prohibition: The respondents argued that neither Article 243R nor Article 243S contains any express prohibition against multi-member wards. They contended that Article 243S deals with the constitution of Wards Committees and not the composition of municipalities.
• State Legislative Competence: The State of Gujarat asserted its legislative competence under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to enact laws on local government.
• Empowerment through Reservation: The respondents argued that the reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes in multi-member wards actually enhances their representation and empowerment.
• Interpretation of Singular and Plural: The respondents submitted that under Article 367 of the Constitution, a singular can also be read as plural.
• No Thematic Mode: The respondents argued that the Constitution does not provide for any thematic mode and manner and the election to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is entirely different.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the multi-member ward system is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of empowerment of weaker sections and the principle of one member one ward. They argued that the words occurring in the Constitution should be read in their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. The respondents argued that the Constitution does not provide for any thematic mode and manner and the election to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is entirely different.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Article 243R and Article 243S of the Constitution of India contain any limitation to the effect that there shall be only one member from one Ward?
2. Whether the provisions of Sections 5(3)(iii)(a), 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and Rules 4 and 5 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (the delimitation of wards and allocation of reserved seats) Rules, 1994 and Rule 2(b) of Gujarat Municipal Corporation’s Ward Committees Functions, Duties, Territorial Areas and Procedure for Transaction of Business Rules, 2007 are ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution?
3. Whether having more than one representative from a Ward negates the empowerment of weaker sections, i.e., women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?
4. Whether when the draft rules for amendment of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (the delimitation of wards and allocation of reserved seats) Rules, 1994 were issued on 27.11.2014 which were to be published after noting of objections on or expiry of thirty days, the State Government could have issued notification dated 04.12.2014 before expiry of thirty days?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 5(3)(iii)(a) and Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and Rules 4 and 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (the Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994, and Rule 2(b) of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation’s Ward Committees Rules, 2007 are not inconsistent with Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeals challenging the validity of multi-member wards.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Ch. Tika Ramji and Others, etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1956 SC 676* to interpret legislative entries broadly.
• The Court cited Maharaj Umeg Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bombay and Ors., AIR 1955 SC 540* to assert that State legislative power is plenary unless expressly limited by the Constitution.
• The Court referred to Jindal Stainless Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 1* to reiterate that the power of the State to legislate within its legislative competence is plenary and cannot be curtailed in the absence of an express limitation placed on such power in the Constitution itself.
• The Court used Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (1979) 2 SCC 88* to define “inconsistent” as mutually contradictory.
• The Court used Deep Chand and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 648* to determine repugnancy between statutes.
• The Court used M.Karunanidhi Vs.Union of India and Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 431* to reiterate the principles for determining inconsistency between two statutes.
• The Court referred to M/s. Ram Chandra Mawa Lal, Varanasi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1984 (Supp.) SCC 28* to explain that the Centre and State cannot speak on the same channel and create disharmony.
• The Court referred to K.T. Plantation Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Karanataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1* to explain that repugnancy arises when the provisions of both laws are fully inconsistent or absolutely irreconcilable.
• The Court examined Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1* for the principle that the doctrine of implication has to be applied to explain the constitutional concepts but also noted that interpretation has to have a base in the Constitution.
• The Court referred to Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 34* for principles of interpreting constitutional provisions.
• The Court examined M.T. Khan and Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 267* for the interpretation of Articles 165 and 367 of the Constitution.
• The Court referred to Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 254* to explain that the definition of person under Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act is not applicable automatically to interpret the provision of the Constitution unless the context so requires.
• The Court referred to Kasambhai F. Ghanchi vs. Chandubhai D. Rajput and others, (1998) 1 SCC 285* to explain that the idea of providing reservation for the benefit of weaker sections of the society is not only to ensure their participation but it is an effort to improve their lot.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning emphasized the following points:

• Absence of Express Limitation: The Court found no explicit prohibition in Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution against multi-member wards. The Court emphasized that the legislative competence of a State legislature can only be limited by express prohibitions in the Constitution.
• Interpretation of Article 243S: The Court clarified that Article 243S pertains to the constitution of Wards Committees and not the composition of municipalities. The provisions of Article 243S(3) is not a provision regarding composition of Municipality rather the provision is for constitution and composition of Wards Committee.
• State Legislative Power: The Court upheld the State legislature’s power to legislate on local government matters under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
• Empowerment through Reservation: The Court reasoned that reservation of seats in multi-member wards enhances the representation of women, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, and hence, empowers them. The Court held that when there are more numbers are reserved for weaker sections their participation in municipality is bound to increase giving strength to their voice and effective participation which is nothing but empowerment of weaker sections.
• No Procedural Irregularity: The Court found that the notification dated 04.12.2014 was not related to the draft rules published on 27.11.2014, and thus, there was no procedural irregularity.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The ratio of Fact:Law is 30:70, which indicates that the Court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal considerations and interpretation of constitutional provisions, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Parmar Samantsinh vs. State of Gujarat (2021) upheld the validity of multi-member wards in Gujarat municipal elections. The Court clarified that the Constitution does not mandate a one-member-per-ward system and that State legislatures have the power to determine the composition of municipal bodies. The judgment also emphasized that reservation of seats in multi-member wards is a valid mechanism for empowering weaker sections of society. This ruling has far-reaching implications for municipal elections across India, affirming the autonomy of State legislatures in determining the structure of local government bodies, within the bounds of the Constitution.

Impact on the Legal Landscape: The Supreme Court’s judgment clarified the scope of Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution, affirming the power of State legislatures to determine the composition of municipal bodies. This decision has implications for municipal election procedures across India, as it confirms that the Constitution does not mandate a one-member-per-ward system. The judgment also reinforces the importance of reservation as a means of empowering weaker sections of society, even in the context of multi-member wards.