Supreme Court Upholds No-Confidence Motion Despite Procedural Irregularities: Padmini Singha vs. State of Assam (2018)

Date of the Judgment: September 27, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 865

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The judgment was authored by Dipak Misra, CJI.

Can a no-confidence motion against a Panchayat President be invalidated due to a procedural lapse? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a no-confidence motion was challenged for not being presided over by the correct authority. The core issue revolved around whether the participation of the affected party in the meeting, despite procedural irregularities, could validate the outcome. The Supreme Court bench comprised Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the judgment authored by Chief Justice Misra.

Case Background

On January 30, 2014, Padmini Singha, along with seven other members of the Masughat Gaon Panchayat, submitted a no-confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat, respondent no. 6. They requested a special meeting to prove the majority as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The Secretary of the Panchayat forwarded this requisition to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat on February 15, 2014, noting that the matter had been presented to the Gaon Panchayat President on February 7, 2014, but she had asked to wait due to legal complications. The Block Development Officer (BDO) then referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner on February 26, 2014, stating that the President had asked to wait and the stipulated period for calling a meeting had passed.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner, on March 17, 2014, instructed the BDO to take action as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Subsequently, on March 21, 2014, the BDO informed the President of the special meeting for the no-confidence motion to be held on March 31, 2014. The meeting took place on March 31, 2014, presided over by the BDO, where nine members voted in favor of the no-confidence motion, and one voted against it. Consequently, the President lost her position, and the Vice President was directed to act as the in-charge President.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the passing of the no-confidence motion, the former President filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the validity of the resolution. The single judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on August 9, 2016, stating that the Deputy Commissioner should have convened the meeting and that there was no valid delegation of authority to the BDO to preside over the meeting. The court set aside the resolution, declaring it null and void.

The appellant then filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed on November 24, 2017. The Division Bench concurred with the single judge, holding that only the Deputy Commissioner could convene the meeting and that the BDO could only preside if the Deputy Commissioner was unable to do so and had conveyed this inability. The court emphasized that when the law prescribes a specific way to do something, it must be done in that way or not at all.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, which deals with no-confidence motions against the President and Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat. The relevant part of Section 15 is as follows:

“Section 15 – No confidence motion against the President and Vice-President: – (1) Every President or Vice-President shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith when resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of two third of the total number of members of the Gaon Panchayat. Such a meeting shall be specially convened by the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat with approval of the President of the Gaon Panchayat. Such meeting shall be presided over by the President if the motion is against the Vice-President, and by the Vice-President, if the motion is against the President. In case such a meeting is not convened within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat shall within three days, refer the matter to the President of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat, who shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of receipt of the information from the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat and preside over such meeting. In case the President of the Anchalik Panchayat does not take action as above, within the specified seven days time, the concerned Gaon Panchayat Secretary shall inform the matter to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as the case may be within three days after the expiry of the stipulated seven days time and the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) shall convene the meeting within seven days from the date of the receipt of the information with intimation to the Zilla Parishad and the Anchalik Panchayat and preside over the meeting so convened: Provided that the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (C) as the case may be, in case of his inability to preside over the meeting, may depute one Gazetted Officer under him not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside over such meeting: Provided further that when a non-confidence motion is lost, no such motion shall be allowed in the next six months.”

This section specifies the procedure for convening and presiding over a no-confidence motion meeting. Initially, the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat convenes the meeting. If not convened within 15 days, the matter goes to the President of the Anchalik Panchayat, who has 7 days to convene the meeting. If the Anchalik Panchayat President fails to act, the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) must convene the meeting within 7 days. The Deputy Commissioner can depute a Class-I Gazetted Officer to preside if unable to do so themselves.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Padmini Singha) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the no-confidence motion was validly passed, despite the procedural lapse of the BDO presiding over the meeting instead of the Deputy Commissioner.
• The appellant contended that the respondent no. 6, the former President, had attended and participated in the meeting, thereby waiving any procedural irregularities.
• The appellant emphasized that the core purpose of the law was fulfilled as the no-confidence motion was debated and voted upon, with the respondent no. 6 fully aware of the proceedings.

Respondent’s (Former President) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the meeting was illegal because it was not convened and presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, as mandated by Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
• The respondent contended that the Deputy Commissioner had not delegated his power to the BDO to preside over the meeting.
• The respondent relied on the principle that when the law prescribes a specific procedure, it must be strictly followed, and any deviation renders the action invalid.

Sub-Submissions by Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the ultimate resolution of the meeting could have been discarded given that the respondent no. 6 was present in the meeting and signed the resolution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994: The court analyzed the procedure for no-confidence motions against Panchayat Presidents and Vice-Presidents, as detailed in this section.
• Principle of Waiver: The court applied the principle that a procedural requirement meant for the benefit of a party can be waived by that party if no public interest is involved.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court analyzed Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 to determine the correct procedure for convening and presiding over a no-confidence motion meeting.
• The Court applied the principle of waiver, concluding that the respondent’s participation in the meeting waived the procedural irregularity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the respondent, despite knowing the procedural irregularities, participated in the no-confidence motion meeting. This participation was seen as a waiver of the procedural requirements. The court emphasized that the core purpose of the law—to allow a vote on the no-confidence motion—was fulfilled, and no public interest was affected by the procedural lapse. The Court also noted that the respondent only raised the procedural issue after losing the vote, suggesting that the objection was opportunistic rather than a genuine concern about fairness.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as strictly adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 15. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the respondent’s participation and the fulfillment of the law’s purpose outweighed the procedural lapse. The court reasoned that the respondent’s participation in the meeting, despite knowing the procedural irregularities, constituted a waiver of the procedural requirement. The final decision was reached by balancing the need for procedural compliance with the principle that procedural lapses should not invalidate actions when the core purpose of the law is fulfilled and no public interest is affected.

The Court stated:

“It is well settled in law that a mandatory provision of law requires strict compliance but there are situations where even if a provision is mandatory, non -compliance would not result in nullification of the act.”

“One such exception is, if a certain requirement or condition is provided in a statute for the benefit or interest of a particular person , the same can be waived by him if no public interest is involved.”

“Having participated, it has to be held that the respondent no. 6 had waived the condition precedent.”

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of waiver, which states that a party can waive a procedural requirement intended for their benefit if no public interest is involved. The Court found that the respondent’s participation in the meeting, despite the procedural irregularity, constituted such a waiver. The Court also emphasized that the core purpose of the law, which was to allow a vote on the no-confidence motion, was fulfilled.

Key Takeaways

• Waiver of Procedural Irregularities: Parties who participate in proceedings despite procedural irregularities may be deemed to have waived their right to object to those irregularities later.
• Substantial Compliance: Courts may uphold actions if the core purpose of the law is fulfilled, even if there are minor procedural lapses, especially when no public interest is harmed.
• Importance of Participation: Participation in a meeting or proceeding can have legal consequences, including the waiver of certain rights.
• Opportunistic Objections: Courts may view objections to procedural irregularities as opportunistic if they are raised only after an unfavorable outcome.

The judgment may impact future cases by emphasizing that the courts will consider the overall fairness and purpose of the legal process, rather than focusing solely on strict procedural compliance. It may also encourage parties to raise procedural objections promptly, rather than waiting for an unfavorable outcome.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the competent authority to carry out the consequences of the no-confidence motion, effectively reinstating the removal of the former President and directing the Vice President to take charge as the in-charge President.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a procedural irregularity in convening a no-confidence motion meeting can be waived if the affected party participates in the meeting without objection. This judgment clarifies that the principle of waiver can apply even to mandatory procedural requirements, especially when no public interest is involved. This decision does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the circumstances under which a procedural lapse can be overlooked.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Gauhati High Court. The Court upheld the no-confidence motion against the former President of the Masughat Gaon Panchayat, emphasizing that her participation in the meeting, despite the procedural irregularity of the BDO presiding instead of the Deputy Commissioner, constituted a waiver. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of substantial compliance with the law and the principle of waiver in cases where no public interest is affected.