2010 (12) TMI 1317 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 7(3) vis-à-vis Sections 9(2) and 9A of the Amendment Act.
2. Authority of the senior Up-Pramukh to discharge the duties of the Pramukh post-Amendment Act.
3. Validity of the District Magistrate's power to nominate an elected member as Pramukh when the post is vacant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 7(3) vis-à-vis Sections 9(2) and 9A of the Amendment Act
The court examined whether the non-obstante clause in Section 7(3) of the Amendment Act overrides the provisions of Sections 9(2) and 9A. The court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 7(3) has a limited operation, allowing the Up-Pramukh to "continue to hold office as such... as if the said Act were not enacted." This means that despite the abolition of the post of Up-Pramukh, those elected before the amendment will continue to hold office as Up-Pramukh until their term expires. The court emphasized that the non-obstante clause should not be interpreted to revive the pre-existing provisions of Sections 82 and 83, which were expressly deleted by the Amendment Act.

Issue 2: Authority of the senior Up-Pramukh to discharge the duties of the Pramukh post-Amendment Act
The respondents argued that the Up-Pramukh should automatically become the Pramukh when the post falls vacant, based on the pre-Amendment Act provisions. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Amendment Act abolished the post of Up-Pramukh and provided that the District Magistrate should make arrangements for the discharge of the functions of the Pramukh when the post is vacant. The court clarified that the term "continue to hold office as such" means that the Up-Pramukh will only hold the office of Up-Pramukh and not discharge the functions of the Pramukh.

Issue 3: Validity of the District Magistrate's power to nominate an elected member as Pramukh when the post is vacant
The court upheld the District Magistrate's power to nominate an elected member to the post of Pramukh under Sections 9(2) and 9A of the Amendment Act. The court found that the Amendment Act was introduced to make the state laws regulating Panchayats compatible with Part IX of the Constitution. The court affirmed the orders passed by the District Magistrates in exercise of their power under these sections and set aside the contrary reasoning given in the High Court judgment.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the High Court were set aside. The court affirmed the District Magistrates' orders and clarified the limited operation of the non-obstante clause in Section 7(3) of the Amendment Act. There was no order as to costs.