Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Panchayat Samiti Party Leader: Sangeeta vs. State of Maharashtra (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 592

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a political party remove its leader in a local governing body if the leader loses the confidence of the majority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the removal of a Panchayat Samiti party leader in Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around whether a party leader, once appointed, has a fixed term, or if the party can replace the leader through a majority decision.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming that a party leader in a Panchayat Samiti can be removed by a majority decision of the party members. The court emphasized the democratic principle that a leader must enjoy the confidence of the majority to continue in their position. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

Case Background

In 2017, the appellant, along with respondents 3, 4, and 5, were elected as members of the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti. All four contested the election under the authorization of the Indian National Congress (INC) Party. They formed a ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ named INCPS Party.

On March 1, 2017, the INCPS Party held its first meeting, presided over by Shri Jayantrao Sasane, then President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. In this meeting, the appellant was selected as the Gatneta (Party Leader/Party Whip) of the INCPS Party. The appellant was authorized to prepare rules and regulations and submit them to the District Collector, Ahmednagar. It was also resolved that the District President of INC would have the power to change the Party Leader and submit proposals to the District Collector.

The appellant informed the District Collector on March 7, 2017, about the formation of the INCPS Party and her election as its leader. The District Collector recorded this information on March 8, 2017, as per the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987.

On December 19, 2019, respondents 3 to 5 filed a complaint against the appellant with the District President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party, alleging that she had not taken the members of INCPS Party into confidence nor convened any meetings. A notice for a meeting on January 4, 2020, was served on the appellant on December 26, 2019, for change of Gatneta.

In the meeting held on January 4, 2020, under the chairmanship of Mr. Balasaheb Salunke, the Ahmednagar District INC Party President, a unanimous resolution was passed to remove the appellant from the post of Party Leader. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as the new Party Leader/Party Whip. Respondent No. 3 submitted a proposal to the District Collector on January 6, 2020, which was approved the same day.

On January 7, 2020, the election for Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti was held. Two conflicting whips were issued, one by Respondent No. 3 and another by the appellant. The appellant was elected as Chairman with the support of members from other parties, despite the INCPS party members voting against her. Disqualification proceedings were initiated by both the appellant and Respondent No. 3 against each other.

The appellant challenged the District Collector’s decision to approve the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Gatneta in a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellant argued that, according to Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987, she was elected as Party Leader for a period of five years and could not be removed before the completion of this term. She contended that the meeting to remove her was convened by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party, an outsider, and that only she could have convened such a meeting. She also argued that the rules were enacted to prevent horse-trading and maintain purity in the political system, implying that a fixed term for a party leader is essential to achieve this goal.

The State of Maharashtra submitted that the District Collector initially approved the appellant as Gatneta based on a resolution passed by all four members of the INCPS Party. The subsequent approval of respondent No. 3 was based on a resolution passed by a three-fourth majority of the INCPS Party, and therefore, was in accordance with the law.

Respondents 3 to 5 argued that the appellant acted in breach of the rules by contesting the election for Chairman contrary to the mandate of the INCPS Party and was elected with the support of rival parties. They contended that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the removal of the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) of the INCPS Party and the appointment of respondent No. 3 in her place was valid under the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 and the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987.
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to continue as the Gatneta for a fixed term of five years, irrespective of the confidence of the majority of the party members.

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to Section 2(l) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 to define ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’.
• The Court referred to Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 to explain the provisions on disqualification on the ground of defection.
• The Court referred to Rule 3(1) and (4) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 to explain the procedure for furnishing information by the leader of the party.
• The Court relied on Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others [(2015) 11 SCC 403] to emphasize that the leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by the aghadi or front and not by an outsider.
• The Court cited Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 12 SCC 1] to highlight that democratic institutions must run on democratic principles and that a leader must enjoy the confidence of the members.
• The Court cited Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2014) 7 SCC 663] to support the view that an elected representative can only stay in power so long as they enjoy the support of the majority.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the principle of democratic governance, emphasizing that a leader must retain the confidence of the majority of the members they represent. The Court underscored that the appellant’s claim to a fixed term was not supported by statutory rules, and the so-called rules submitted by her were not on par with statutory rules. The Court also noted that the appellant’s initial appointment and subsequent removal followed the same procedure, which was chaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. The court also highlighted that the appellant had acted against the wishes of the party by contesting the election for Chairman with the support of rival groups.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. The factual aspects included the circumstances of the appellant’s appointment and removal, the procedures followed, and her actions in contesting the election for Chairman. The legal considerations included the interpretation of relevant sections of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 and the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987, as well as the application of democratic principles.

The Court considered the argument that the appellant was entitled to a fixed term of five years, but rejected it, stating that the rules submitted by the appellant were not statutory rules. The Court emphasized that the principle of democratic governance and the need for a leader to have the confidence of the majority was paramount. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had acted against the wishes of the party by contesting the election for Chairman with the support of rival groups. The Court ultimately concluded that the removal of the appellant and the appointment of respondent No. 3 were valid.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The removal of the appellant and appointment of respondent No. 3 was done in a meeting chaired by the President of Ahmednagar District INC Party, following the same procedure by which the appellant was appointed.
• The rules and regulations submitted by the appellant were not statutory rules and could not override the democratic principle that a leader must enjoy the confidence of the majority.
• The appellant had acted against the wishes of the party by contesting the election for Chairman with the support of rival groups.
• The Court emphasized that in a democratic setup, the will of the majority has to prevail.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The so-called reference to rules and regulations under Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules cannot be stretched to be on par with the rules and regulations framed on the basis of any statutory power.”

“In a democracy, a leader is not imposed; leader is elected. Once the birth of a leader in a group is by way of election by the group, the Group Leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very same process of the election in the group, in the absence of any rules to the contra.”

“We are amazed to hear the argument of horse-trading from the mouth of the appellant. It is the appellant who has acted contrary to the wishes of the Party and chose to contest the election of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the application of democratic principles. The Court emphasized that a leader must have the confidence of the majority and that the rules submitted by the appellant were not statutory and could not override this principle. The Court’s analysis was based on the facts of the case, and the Court also considered the conduct of the appellant in acting against the wishes of the party.

The implications of this decision for future cases are that it reinforces the principle that a leader in a local governing body must have the confidence of the majority of the members they represent. It also clarifies that the rules and regulations submitted by a party leader are not on par with statutory rules and cannot override the democratic principle of majority rule.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of existing legal provisions and the application of democratic principles.

Key Takeaways

• A party leader in a Panchayat Samiti can be removed by a majority decision of the party members.
• The rules and regulations submitted by a party leader are not statutory rules and cannot override the democratic principle that a leader must enjoy the confidence of the majority.
• A leader cannot thrust their leadership on the majority if they have lost their confidence.
• The principle of democratic governance requires that a leader must have the support of the majority of the members they represent.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The Court simply dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a party leader in a Panchayat Samiti can be removed by a majority decision of the party members, and the leader does not have a fixed term irrespective of the confidence of the party. This judgment reinforces the principle that a leader must have the confidence of the majority to continue in their position. There was no change in the previous position of law, rather it was reaffirmed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the removal of the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) and the appointment of respondent No. 3 was valid. The Court emphasized the principle of democratic governance, stating that a leader must enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members they represent. The Court also clarified that the rules submitted by the appellant were not statutory and could not override the democratic principle of majority rule.