9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1119 - SC - Indian LawsMotion of No Confidence in Adhyaksha - Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - it was alleged that the motion for no confidence has been done with an ulterior motive to usurp the office of the appellant. It was alleged that atleast three members whose names were mentioned in the Motion for No Confidence had not signed the motion/notice requesting the Collector to call a meeting. Held that - the amendment as well as the main provision in Section 28 is in absolute accord with the vision explicitly enunciated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. In fact, the spirit which led to ultimately encoding the goals of WE THE PEOPLE in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, permeates all other provisions of the Constitution of India. The fundamental aim of the Constitution of India is to give power to the People. Guiding spirit of the Constitution is WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA . In India, the People are supreme, through the Constitution of India, and not the elected Representatives. Therefore the provision for right to recall through the Vote of No Confidence is in no manner repugnant to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The whole edifice of the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 28 is built on the status of the petitioner as a member belonging to the reserved category. It has nothing to do with the continuance, stability, dignity and the status of the Panchayat Institutions. The personal desire, of the petitioner to cling on to the office of Adhyaksha is camouflaged as a constitutional issue. The provision of No Confidence Motion, in our opinion, is not only consistent with Part IX of the Constitution, but is also foundational for ensuring transparency and accountability of the elected representatives, including Panchayat Adhyakshas. The provision sends out a clear message that an elected Panchayat Adhyaksha can continue to function as such only so long as he/she enjoys the confidence of the constituents. The provision for removing an elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Motion of No Confidence against the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat under Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Article 243N of the Constitution of India concerning the removal of the Adhyaksha. 3. Allegations of forgery in the initiation of the Motion of No Confidence. 4. The impact of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment on the provision for No Confidence Motion. 5. The maintainability of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court's judgment in the review petition. 6. Whether the judgment in Bhanumati & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 1 is per incuriam. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Motion of No Confidence: The appellant contested the validity of the Motion of No Confidence initiated under Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 28, stating that it is not inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right of democracy allows for the removal of elected representatives through a No Confidence Motion, provided the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute is followed. 2. Applicability of Article 243N: The appellant argued that Section 28 is inconsistent with Article 243N of the Constitution, which deals with the continuance of existing laws and Panchayats. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 28 is not inconsistent with Article 243N and that the provision for No Confidence Motion ensures that an elected representative can only remain in power as long as they enjoy the majority support of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat. 3. Allegations of Forgery: The appellant alleged that the initiation of the Motion of No Confidence involved forgery of signatures. The High Court had directed an inquiry, which confirmed the genuineness of the signatures of 34 members. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's allegations and upheld the High Court's findings. 4. Impact of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment: The appellant contended that the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Part IX of the Constitution, does not provide for a No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson of a Panchayat. The Supreme Court held that the amendment does not preclude the State Legislature from enacting provisions for a No Confidence Motion. The Court reiterated that the provision for No Confidence Motion is consistent with the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. 5. Maintainability of the SLP: The respondents argued that the SLP is not maintainable as it challenges only the judgment rendered by the High Court in the review petition and not the main judgment. The Supreme Court, however, entertained the SLP in view of the order passed on 19th February 2013, which allowed the appellant to seek a review of the High Court's judgment. 6. Whether Bhanumati & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. is per incuriam: The appellant argued that the judgment in Bhanumati & Ors. is per incuriam as it did not consider the provisions for special protection to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the judgment in Bhanumati & Ors. had comprehensively considered the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution and is not per incuriam. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, and confirming that the provision for No Confidence Motion is consistent with the democratic principles of the Constitution. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition as infructuous and upheld the High Court's judgment in the review petition.
|
