LI Network
Published on: 26 August 2023 at 12:02 IST
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has recently ruled that a Sarpanch who has been removed from office through a no-confidence motion can participate in by-elections to regain the same vacant position.
The Court emphasized that what might seem ethically appealing may not necessarily align with legal provisions.
The bench underscored that as the rights of the concerned parties were regulated by the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, there exists no statutory prohibition preventing a Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch from participating in by-elections following their removal via a no-confidence motion.
While refraining from invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the bench, comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, stated, “Given that the Act of 1959 governs the rights of the parties, and in the absence of any statutory restriction on a Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch contesting a by-election resulting from their own removal through a no-confidence motion, the petitioners’ argument cannot be accepted.
If the Legislature has not deemed it necessary to disallow a Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch removed via a no-confidence motion from contesting the by-election prompted by their removal, the Court cannot impose such a prohibition, especially when Sections 14, 35, and 43 of the Act of 1959 unmistakably reflect the legislative intent.”
In the case at hand, the position of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat, Wathoda, was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women) in accordance with Section 30 of the Act of 1959. Respondent no.6 was elected as the Sarpanch following elections on January 28, 2021.
Subsequently, a no-confidence motion was initiated against her by the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 7 to 11. This motion was successfully passed on June 8, 2023, leading to the removal of respondent no.6 from the role of Sarpanch.
The central question before the Court was whether, in situations where the post of Sarpanch is reserved for a specific category and the elected Sarpanch is the sole representative of that category, the removed Sarpanch can partake in the by-election to fill the vacancy caused by their removal due to a no-confidence motion under Section 35(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
The petitioners contended that allowing a removed member to contest the by-election for the same position contradicts democratic principles and diminishes the significance of a no-confidence motion.
The bench, however, dismissed the petitioners’ arguments and cited Raghunathrao Ganpatrao V. Union of India, AIR 1963, to highlight the distinction between legality and morality, as well as the boundary that separates moral obligations from legal ones.
