http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: RAM BETI ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJADHIKARI & ORS,

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/12/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGARWAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER,1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr, Justice S.C.Agrawal               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu G.L.Sanghi, Yogeshwar  Prasad,  J.P.Goyal,  Sr.Advs.,Mahabir Singh, R.D.Upadhaya,  Mukesh K,Giri,  Abha R.  Sharma, Safia Khan, Kavin Gulati, Ms.Nandini Gore, A.V.Palli, Atul Sharma, Shrish Kumar  Mishra, Indra Makwana, Pravir Chudhary. Arvind Agrawal, Manoj  Saxena,  Ms.B.Sunita  Rao,  Pramod  Swarup,. S.K.Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, M/s.Shobha Verma, Punit Dutt  Tyagi,   Shree  Pall  Singh,  P.K.Jain,  D.L.K.  Garg, R.P.Gupta, A.K.Srivastava, B.L.Yadav, B.M.Sharma, T.N.Singh, S.K.Bhatt, S.R.  Bhatt, Debasis  Misra, Suman  Bala Rastogi, D.K.Saxena,    S.K.     Sabbarwal,    J.P.Dhanda,    K.K.Rai B.Y.Kulkarni, Shyam  Mohan  Srivastava.  Neeraj  Srivastava, Anbhuj  Srivastava,   C.L.Sahu  Rajesh,   Makrand   D.Adkar, S.D.Singh Anil  Kumar  Gupta-II,  Ms.Rani  Jethmalani,  Prem Sunder Jha,  V.v.Joshi, Alok Singh, Umesh Bhagat, Anis Ahmed Khan,   Gulab    Chandra,   M.K.D.Namboodri,    M.P.   Raju, T.R.V.Rajan, U.S.prasad,  Neeraj Jain, Monish Mohan, Santosh Gupta, M.P.S.  Tomar, Ms.  Sandhya  Goswamin,  Sunil  Kumar, S.K.Sinha,      S.Kulshreshtha,       Rakesh       K.Sharma, Ms.M.Annapoorani,  S.P.  Singh,  Goodwill  Indeevar,  Vishnu sharma,  Ms.Mridhla   Ray  Bhardwaj,   Shashindra  Tripathi, Sudamaji Shamli,  K.L.Taneja, V.K.Sharma,  Advs., with  them for the appearing parties.                       J U D G M E N T      The following judgment of the Court was delivered: 16647/97, 16602/97, 16969/97, 16972/97, 16978/97, 17061/97, 17127/97, 17176/97, 17267/97, 17338/97, 17342/97, 17355/97, 17327/97, 17321/97, 17365/97, 17444/97, 17435/97, 17461/97, 17463/97, 17454/97, 17453/97, 17443/97, 17459/97, 17462/97, 17464/97, 17470/97, 17465/97, 17475/97, 17482/97, 17485- 17488/97,  17467/97,   21024/97,  20440/97,  19875/97,  writ Petitions (c)  Nos. 621/97,  620/97, 615/97,  special  Leave Petitions (CP  Nos. 20956/97,  20998/97,24346/97,  21360/97, 21371/97, Writ Petitions (C)Nos.628/97,595/97, Special Leave Petitions   (C)Nos.21407/97,2502/97,   20548/97,   20444/97, 20528/97,   20697/97,   20700/97,15817/97,   Special   Leave Petitions             (C)             Nos.23084.85.89.90/97@

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

(C.O.Nos.8638/97,8668/97,8711/97 and 8635/97)                       J U D G M E N T S.C.AGRAWAL.J:      These matters  raise common  questions relating  to the validity of  the provisions  contained in  Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat  Raj Act.  1947 (  hereinafter referred to as the Act)  in so  far as  the  said  provision  provides  for removal of the Pradhan of a Gram Sabha by a majority of two- thirds of  the m  embers of  the Gram  Panchayat present and voting.      The  Act   was  enacted  by  the  U.P.  Legislature  to establish and  develop local  Self Government  In the  rural areas of  the State and to make better provision for village administration  and  development.,  The  act  amongst  other things makes provision for establishment and constitution of Gram Sabhas  and gram  Panchayats, election  of Pradhans and Up-Pradhans of  Gram Sabhas  and members  of Gram Panchayats and removal of Pradhans and Up-Pradhans. The election to the office of  the Pradhan  or Up-Pradhan  of a Gram Sabha and a member of a Gram, Panchayat is required to be held by secret ballot in (With Civil Appeals Nos.5715/97,58816/97,5817/97,5818/97. 5819/97,5820/97,5721/97, 5822/97,5823-5828/97,   5829/97, 5830/97,5831/97.5832/97.5833/97.5834/97.5835/97. 5836/97. 5837/97.5838/97.5839/97.5840/97.5841/97.5842/97.5541/97. 5542/97.5543/97.5544/97.5548/97.5547/97.5546/97.5545/97. Special            Leave             Petition            (C) Nos.15095/9715511/97.15505/97.15479/97.15676/97.15835/97.160 66/97.‘16087/97.16084/97.16073/97.16030/97.15836/97.15454/97 .16138- 16154/97.15277/97.16174/97.16171/97.16165/97.16169/97.16168/ 97.16206-16215/97.16203/97.16204/97.16205/97.16216-16219/97. 15797/97.15804/97.16712/97.16334-16337/97.16409/97.16607/97. 16614/97.17028-17030/97.15206/97.15235/97.19720/97.19739/97. 19749/97.19750/97.19962/97.20133/97.20151/97.20218/97.20220/ 97.20153- 20298/97.20299/97.20337/97.20335/97.19790/97.19794/97.Writ Petitions                                                (C) Nos.655/97.566/97.582/97.586/97.583/97.590/97.591/97.Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.18948/97.19046/97.18766/97.18796/97. 18788/97.18767/97.18846/97.18877/97.18971/97.19072/97.19188/ 97, 19462/97,  19457/97, 19093/97, 19494/97, 19688-19693/97, 19086/97, 19685/97,  18817/97,Writ Petiyion  (C)  No.560/97, Special   Leave    Petitions   (C)    Nos.18713/97,   17495- 17503/97.17491/97, 17554/97,  17492/97, 17979/97,  17980/97, 17497/97, 18085/97,  17556/97, 17558/97, 17633/97, 17807/97, 17634/97, 17811/97,  17886/97, 18142/97, 18521/97, 18534/97, 18535/97, 18544/97,  18545/97, 18595/97,  18182/9, 18467/97, 18596/97, 18597/97,  18728/97, 18691/97, 18692/97, 18703/97, Writ Petition  (c) No.  516/97, Special  Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18593/97, 16291/97. the  manner   prescribed  (Section   12A).  Under  the  U.P. Panchayat Raj  Rules, 194  (hereinafter referred  to as  the Rules) the  Pradhan is  elected by  the members  of the Gram Sabha, i.e.,  all persons whose names are for the time being included in the electoral roll of a Gram Sabha. Prior to the amendments introduced  in the  Act by  the U.P.Act  No.9  of 1994, Section  14(1) of  the Act  provided that  the Pradhan could be  removed by  two thirds  of the members of the Gaon Sabha present  and voting  at a  meeting specially  convened fore the  purpose and  of which  at least  15 days  previous notice has  been given,  By the  constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act,  1992 Part  IX (  Articles 243  to 243O) has been introduced  in the constitution. The said Part contains provisions   relating   to   Panchayats   at   the   village

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

intermediate and  district levels,  In Article  243N it  has been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the said Part any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in  a State immediately before the commencement of the constitution (  Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with  the provisions  of the  said part,  shall continue to  be in  force until  amended or  repealed  by  a competent legislature  or other competent authority on until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier.,  In accordance  with the  said requirement, the U.P. Satate Legislature amended the Act by enacting Act 9 of 199. As  a result  of the amendment introduced in the Act by Act 9  to 1994  the Gaon Sabhas have been designated as Gram Sabhas  and   under  Section  3  a  Gram  Sabha  has  to  be established for  a village or group of villages by the State Government by  notification.   The Gram  Sabha  consists  of persons registered  in the  electoral rolls  relating  to  a village comprised within the area of a Gram Panchayat. Under Section 11F  the state  Government is required to declare by notification any  area comprising  a  village  or  group  of villages, having  as far as practicable, a population of one thousand, to be a Panchayat area for the purpose of the Act. Section 12 provides for constitution of a Gram Panchayat for every Panchayat  area. The  Gram  Panchayat  consists  of  a Pradhan and  nine members where the Panchayat area is having a population  of one  thousand,  eleven  members  where  the Panchayat area  is having  a population  of more  than on  e thousand but  not more  than one  thousand but not more than two thousand,  thirteen members  where the Panchayat area is having a  population of  more than two thousand but not more than three  thousand and fifteen members where the Panchayat area is  having a population of more than three thousand and fifteen  members  where  the  Panchayat  area  is  having  a population of  more than three thousand. The election to the office of  the Pradhan continues to be held by secret ballot by all the members of the Gram Sabha as laid down in Section 12A and the Rules Section 14 of the Act, as amended by Act 9 of 1994, provides as follows:- ’’Section 14.  Removal of  Pradhan or  Up-Pradhan.-- (1) The Gram Panchayat  may, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days’ previous notice shall be given,  remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting.      (2) A  meeting for the removal of a      Pradhan  shall   not  be   convened      within one year of his election.      (3) If  the motion  is not taken up      for want  of quorum  or  fails  for      lack of  requisite majority  at the      meeting, no  subsequent meeting for      the removal  of  the  same  Pradhan      shall be  convened within a year of      the date of the previous meetings.      (4) Subject  to the  provisions  of      this section, the procedure for the      removal  of  a  Pradhan,  including      that  to   be  followed   at   such      meeting, shall  be such  as may  be      prescribed.      The appellants  in the  appeals and  the petitioners in the special  leave petitions and writ petitions (hereinafter referred to  as ’the  petitioners’)  were  duly  elected  as Pradhans of  Gram  Sabhas.  Action  for  their  removal  was initiated before  the concerned Gram Panchayat under Section 14 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the proposed move for their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

removal as  Pradhan by  the members  of the  respective Gram Panchayats, they  approached the  Allahabad  High  Court  by filing writ  petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein they  challenged the  validity of  Section 14 of the Act.   It was  urged that  since a Pradhan is elected by all the members of the Gram Sabha he could be removed only if he had lost  the confidence  of the members who had elected him and Section  14 of  the Act  which provides for removal of a Pradhan by members of the Gram Panchayat is unconstitutional and  void   since  it   is  destructive  of  the  democratic functioning of  the Panchayats  which are  part of the local administration of  the village community and runs counter to the concept  of democracy  which is  a basic  feature of the Constitution. The said contention was, however rejected by a learned single judge of the High Court in Sm t. Ram Beti vs, District Panchayat  Raj Adhikari  (Civil Misc.Writ  Petition No.14191 of  1997 decided  on May  7,1997) as  well as  by a Division Bench  of the High Court in Bankey Lal vs. State of U.P. (Special   Appeal  No  423  of  1994  decided  on  July 15,1997). The  judgments dismissing the writ petitions files by the petitioners. The said judgments of the High Court are under challenge before this Court in the appeals and special leave petitions.  Some of the Pradhans who were sought to be removed  under  Section  14  of  the  Act  have  filed  writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.      In the  impugned judgment  the High  Court  has  placed reliance on  the decision of this court in Mohanlal Tripathi V. District  Magistrate, Rai  Bareilly &  Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 80, wherein  this court  was  dealing  with  the  provisions contained in  subsection (2)  of Section  87-A  of  the  U.P Musicalities Act,  1916 which  empowered the  members  of  a Municipal Board  to remove  the President  who was  directly elected by  the  electorate  by  moving  a  Motion  of  Non- Confidence.  The   validity  of   the  said  provisions  was challenged before  this Court  on the  Ground  that  it  was violative of  the democratic  concept since  it provided for removal or  recall of  and  elected    representative  by  a smaller and  different body  than the  one that elected him. The said contention was, however, rejected by this Court. It was observed:-      ’’Democracy is  a concept,  a political  philosophy, an ideal practised  by many  nations  culturally  advanced  and politically   mature   by   resorting   to   governance   by representatives  of   the   people   elected   directly   or indirectly.  But   electing  representatives  to  govern  is neither a  ’fundamental right’  nor a  common right’  but  a special right created by the statures, or a political right’ of privilege’  and  not  a  natural’,  absolute’  or  vested right’. Concepts  familiar to  common law  and  equity  must remain  strangers   to  Election   Law  unless   statutorily embodied. Right  to remove  an elected  representative, too, must stem  out of  the  statute  as  in  the  absence  of  a constitutional restriction  it is  within  the  power  of  a legislature to  enact a  law for the recall of officers. Its existence or validity can be decided on the provision of the Act and not, as a matter of policy.’’(pp.84.85)      ’’An  elected  representative  is  accountable  to  its electorate. That is the inherent philosophy in the policy or recall. For  the President  his electorate, to exercise this right, is  the Board  as it comprises representatives of the same constituency  from  which  the  President  is  elected. Purpose of  Section 87-A  of the  Act is,  to remove elected representative who  has lost  confidence of  the body  which elected hi.  It may  be by  people themselves  or  they  may entrust   their   power   through   legislation   to   their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

representatives. In  the Act  it is  the latter.  Members of the Board  are elected  from  smaller  constituencies.  They represent the  entire electorate as they are representatives of the  people although  smaller in body. A President who is elected by  the  entire  electorate  when  removed  by  such members of the Board who are also been elected by the people is in fact removal but the electorate itself. Such provision neither violates  the spirit  nor purpose  or recall  of  an elected representative.  Rather  it  ensures  removal  by  a responsible  body.   It  cannot   be  criticised  either  as irrational or arbitrary or violative of any democratic norm. (pp.87.88)      ’’ The  Board is  thus visualised  as a  body entrusted with responsibility,  to  keep  a  watch  on  the  President whether elected  by it  or  the  electorate.  Any  arbitrary functioning by  the President  or disregard  of provision of the statute  or acting  contrary  to  the  interest  of  the electorate could be know to the Board only. Therefore it was not only  proper but  necessary to empower the Board to take action, if necessary. (p.89)      The learned  counsel for the petitioners have sought to distinguish the  said decision  in Mohanlal Tripathi (supra) on the  ground that the said case was decided in the context of the  office of the President of a  Municipal Board who is elected  by   a  larger   body  of  electorate  and  has  no application to  a case  of removal  of a  Pradhan of  a Gram Sabha who  is elected by a much smaller body  of electorate. The learned  counsel have  placed reliance  on the following observations of  this Court  in  the  judgment  in  Mohanlal Tripathi (supra):-      ’’Comparison with provisions in Panchayat Raj Act where a Pradhan  is removeable  by the  gaon Sabha was odious as a Gaon  Sabha    is  a  very  small  body  as  compared  to  a Municipality."(p.89)      These observations  were made  in the  context  of  the provisions of  Section 14  of the  Act, as  it stood at that time, i.e.,.,  prior to  amendment by Act 9 of 1994, when it provided for removal of a Pradhan by the members of the Gaon Sabha who had elected him.      The learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  have  also invited our  attention to  Section 11  of  the  Act  wherein Provision is  made regarding  meetings and functions of Gram Sabha and  it is prescribed that every Gram Sabha shall hold two general  meetings in  each year  one,  known  as  kharif meeting, to  be held after harvesting of the kharif crop and other, known as rabi meeting, to be held after harvesting of the rabi  crop. The  learned counsel  have pointed  out that under the  first proviso  to Section  11(1) a meeting of the Gram Sabha  can also  be requisitioned by not less than one- fifth   of the number of the members. It has been urged that there is  no difficulty  in moving a motion of no-confidence in any  of the  two general  meetings of  the Gram Sabha for that purpose.  It is  no doubt true that under section 11(1) of the  Act provision  is made  for holding  of two  general meetings of  the Gram  Sabha in  each year  as well  as  for requisitioning of a meeting by one-fifty of the members. But the Legislature,  in its  wisdom, thought it proper that the matter of  removal of a pradhan, instead of being considered at the  meeting of  the Gram Sabha , should be considered by the members  of the Gram Panchayat. The considerations which weighed with  this Court  for upholding the validity of sub- section (2)  of section  87-A of  the U.P  Musicalities Act, 1916 relating to the removal of the President of a Municipal Board in Mohanlal Tripathi (supra) are, in our opinion, also applicable to  the removal  of the  Pradhan of   a  the Gram

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Sabha.   Although under  Section 14  of the Act the power of removal of a pradhan is conferred on the members of the Gram Panchayat, having  been elected  the  members  of  the  Gram Sabha, represent  the same  electorate which has elected the Pradhan. The  removal of  a Pradhan by two-thirds members of the Gram  Panchayat who  are also elected representatives of the members  of the  Gram Sabha  is, in fact, removal by the members of  the Gram  SAbha through  their  representatives. Just  as  the  Municipal  Board  us  visualised  as  a  body entrusted, with  the responsibility  to keep  a watch on the President, whether  elected by  it or  by the electorate, so also the  Gram Panchayat  is visualised as a body entrusted, with the  responsibility to  keep a  watch on the President, Whether elected  by it  or by  the electorate, also the Gram Panchayat  it  visualised  as  a  body  entrusted  with  the responsibility to  keep a  watch on  the Pradhan  who is not elected by  it and  is elected  by the  members of  the Gram Sabha, An arbitrary functioning of a Pradhan in disregard to the statute  or his  acting contrary to the interests of the electorate  could  be  know  to  the  members  of  the  Gram Panchayat only  and, in  the circumstance,  it is but proper that the  members of  the Gram  Panchayat are  em powered to take action  for removal  of the Pradhan If necessary. It is no doubt  true that  in Section  11 of  the Act provision is made for  holding two  general meetings of the Gram Sabha in each year  and for  requisitioning of  a meeting of the Gram Sabha by one-fifty of its members, But, at the same time, we cannot lose  sight of the fact that the number of members of the Gram Sabha is also fairly large, It would range from one to more  than three  thousand. thousand  elections to public offices  even   at  village   level  give   rise  to   sharp polarisation of  the electorate  on cast  or communal basis. The possibility of disturbance of law and order in a meeting of the  Gram Sabha  called  for  considering  a  motion  for removal of  the Pradhan  cannot be excluded, Moreover, there cannot also  be due  deliberation of  a serious matter as no confidence motion  by a  very large  body of  persons. While amending Section  14 of the Act so as to confer the power to remove the  Pradhan of  a Gram  Sabha on  the members of the Gram  Panchayat   the  legislature   must  have  taken  into consideration the  prevailing social  environment. Moreover, buy way  of safeguard  against any arbitrary exercise of the power of  removal it  is necessary  that the  motion must be passed b a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting.      For the  reasons aforementioned  we are  unable to hold that Section  14 of  the Act,  in so  far as it empowers the members of  the Gram  Panchayat to  remove the  Pradhan of a Gram  Sabha   buy  moving  a  motion  of  no-confidence,  is unconstitutional and  void being violative of the concept of democracy or  is arbitrary  and unreasonable so as to be hit vary Article 14 of the Constitution.      It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the event of removal of a pradhan by a motion of mo- confidence, the  Up-Pradhan  takes  over  as  Pradhan  under Section 12H of the Act and that there is no provision in the Act or  the Rules  which requires  that a  fresh election be held to  elect a  new Pradhan within a particular period. It is submitted  that under Section 11A of the Act provision is made for  reservation of  the offices  of Pradhans  for  the Scheduled Castes.  the Scheduled  Tribes  and  the  backward classes  and   for  women   and  that  the  said  policy  of reservation would be frustrated if a Pradhan of a Gram Sabha belonging to  a reserved  category is  removed  and  another pradhan belonging to the said category is not elected before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

the expiry  of the  term fixed  for the Pradhan belonging to the said  category. it  has also been urged that in the even of  the  removal  of  a  pradhan  belonging  to  a  reserved category, the Up-Pradhan who takes over as Pradhan, may be a person who  does not  belong to  that reserved  category and that the  removal of the Pradhan in such a case would result in the object underlying the policy of reservation contained in Section  11A would  defeated by  the members  of the Gram Panchayat. Though  these submissions  do not  touch upon the question of  validity of  Section 14  of the  Act, but  they raise issues  which need consideration by the authorities at the proper level.  Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing  for the  State of  Uttar Pradesh,  states that attention  of the authorities would be invited to these aspects so that appropriate action can betaken soon.      Another grievance  that has  been raised by the learned counsel for  the petitioners  in some of these cases is that in the Writ Petitions that were filed before the High Court, in addition  to the  challenge to the validity of Section 14 of the  Act, the petitioners had also raised other questions assailing the  validity of  the provisions  relating to  the consideration of  the motion  of no-confidence.  It has been submitted that  the High  Court did  not go  into  the  said questions and  the writ petitions have been dismissed on the basis of  the earlier  judgment upholding  the  validity  of Section 14 of the  Act. We find that in many of the impugned judgments the High Court has only considered the question of validity of  Section 14  of the  Act and  the writ petitions have been  dismissed on  the view  that the  said section is valid.   On the basis of the record it cannot be ascertained whether any  other question was raised in the writ petitions but it  was  not  considered  by  the  High  Court.  In  the circumstances, we  consider it  appropriate, in the interest of justice,  to direct that, if any of the petitioners whose writ petition  was dismissed  by the High Court files a writ petition challenging  his removal as Pradhan on the basis of a motion  of removal  passed under  Section 14 of the Act on the ground that such action was taken without complying with the provisions  of Section  14 or the relevant Rules in that regard, the  High Court  may, if it is satisfied that such a contention had  been raised in the earlier writ petition but was not  considered by  the High  Court while  disposing the earlier writ  petition, may  permit the  said petitioner  to raise such  a plea  in  the  subsequent  writ  petition  and consider the same on merits.      The appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions are accordingly  dismissed. But  in the  circumstances there will be no order as to costs.