2010 (5) TMI 783 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Laws Amendment Act, 2007 (U.P. Act No.44 of 2007) are constitutionally valid?

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 and subsequently U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007.
2. Abolition of the offices of "Up-Pramukh", "Senior Up-Pramukh", "Junior Up-Pramukh", and "Upadhyaksha".
3. Introduction of no-confidence motion provisions and their compliance with Part IX of the Constitution.
4. Reduction of the period for bringing a no-confidence motion from two years to one year.
5. Change in the required majority for passing a no-confidence motion from "not less than two-thirds" to "more than half".

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Ordinance and Act, 2007:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007, which later became the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007. The Court found that the amendments were in line with the objectives of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which aimed to strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions by ensuring democratic decentralization and self-governance.

2. Abolition of Offices of "Up-Pramukh", "Senior Up-Pramukh", "Junior Up-Pramukh", and "Upadhyaksha":
The abolition of these offices was challenged on the grounds that it eroded the essence of Panchayati principles and allowed for executive interference. The Court examined the historical context and the objectives of the 73rd Amendment, concluding that the abolition did not violate the constitutional principles of Panchayati Raj. The Court noted that the legislature is empowered to make laws regarding the composition and functioning of Panchayats, as provided under Article 243C(5) of the Constitution.

3. Introduction of No-Confidence Motion Provisions:
The appellants argued that the introduction of no-confidence motion provisions contravened Part IX of the Constitution, which does not explicitly mention such provisions. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Constitution allows the State Legislature to provide details regarding the election and removal of Panchayat officials. The Court emphasized that the provision for no-confidence motions existed even before the 73rd Amendment and was consistent with democratic principles.

4. Reduction of the Period for Bringing a No-Confidence Motion:
The amendment reduced the period for bringing a no-confidence motion from two years to one year. The appellants contended that this change undermined the stability and continuity of Panchayati Raj Institutions. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the reduction in the period did not affect the institutional stability of Panchayats, as the Chairperson could be removed but would continue as a member, ensuring the continuity of the institution.

5. Change in the Required Majority for Passing a No-Confidence Motion:
The amendment changed the required majority for passing a no-confidence motion from "not less than two-thirds" to "more than half". The Court found this change to be reasonable and consistent with democratic principles, allowing for greater accountability and transparency. The Court noted that similar provisions existed in other states and were compatible with the objectives of the 73rd Amendment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007, affirming the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Court found that the amendments were consistent with the principles of democratic decentralization and self-governance enshrined in the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. The appeals were dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated.

← Previous Next →