Back
1997(10) Supreme 469
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal, S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Ram Beti etc. etc. -Appellant
versus
District Panchayat Rajadhikari & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4675 of 1997
(With Civil Appeals Nos. 5815/97, 5816/97, 5817/97, 5818/97, 5819/97, 5820/97, 5821/97, 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. 15095/97, 15511/97, 15505/97, 15479/97, 15676/97, 15835/97, 16066/97, 16087/97, 16084/97, 16073/97, 16030/97, 15836/97, 15454/97, 16138-16154/97, 15277/97, 16174/97, 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, 19788/97, 19807/97,19838/97, 19855/97, 19870/97, 19948/97, 19962/97, 20133/97, 20151/97, 20218/97, 20220/97, 20153-20154/97, 20221/97, 20222/97, 20301/97, 20294/97, 20297-20298/97, 20299/97, 20337/97, 20335/97, 19790/97, 19794/97, Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 665/97, 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, 19618/97, 19620/97, 19647/97, 19641/97, 19684/97, 19688-19693/97, 19686/97, 19685/97, 18817/97, Writ Petition (C) No. 560/97, Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18713/97, 17495-17503/97, 17491/97, 17554/97, 17492/97, 17979/97, 17980/97, 17494/97, 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, 18182/97, 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, 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, 17385/97, 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 (C) Nos. 20958/97, 20998/97, 21346/97, 21360/97, 21371/97, Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 628/97, 595/97, Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 21407/97, 20502/97, 20548/97, 20444/97, 20528/97, 20697/97, 20700/97, 15817/97, Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 23084, 85, 89, 90/97 @ (C.C. Nos. 8638/97, 8668/97,
8711/97, 8635/97)
Decided on 17-12-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties, G.L. Sanghi, Yogeshwar Prasad, J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocates, 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 Chaudhary, Arvind Agrawal, Manoj Saxena, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Pramod Swarup, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Shobha Verma, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Shree Pal Singh, P.K. Jain, D.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.B. Joshi, Alok Singh, Umesh Bhagat, Anis Ahmed Khan, Gulab Chandra, M.K.D. Namboodri, M.P. Raju, T.V. Rajan, U.S. Prasad, Neeraj Jain, Monish Mohan, Santosh Gupta, M.P.S. Tomar, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Sunil Kumar, S.K. Sinha, S. Kulshreshtha, Rakesh K. Sharma, Ms. M. Annapoorani, S.P. Singh, Goodwill Indeevar, Vishu Sharma, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Shashindra Tripathi, Sudamaji Shamli, K.L. Taneja, V.K. Sharma, Advocates.
Held : Although under Section 14 of the Act the power of removal of a Pradhan is conferred on the members of the Gram Panchayat, which is a smaller body than the Gram Sabha, but 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 is 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 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 known to the members of the Gram Panchayat only and, in the circumstances, it is but proper that the members of the Gram Panchayat are empowered 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-fifth 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 thousand to more than three thousand. Elections to public offices even at village level give rise to sharp polarisation of the electorate on caste 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, by way of safeguard against any arbitrary exercise of the power of removal it is necessary that the motion must be passed by 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 by 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 by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 6 & 7)
(ii) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 -Sections 11A and 14-Provision for removal of Pradhan by Gram Panchayat-Constitutional validity challenged on ground that it was violative of democratic concept-Section 11A of the Act providing for reservation of office of Pradhan for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes and for women-Policy of reservation would be frustrated if Pradhan of Gram Sabha belonging to reserved Category was removed-Issue raised needed consideration by authorities at proper level though it did not touch validity of Section 14 of the Act. (Para 8)
JUDGMENT
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 provisions provides for removal of the Pradhan of a Gram Sabha by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Panchayat present and voting.
2. 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 the manner prescribed (Section 12A). Under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (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 for 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 2430) has been introduced in the Constitution. The said Part contains provisions relating to Panchayats at the village, 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 or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier. In accordance with the said requirement, the U.P. State Legislature amended the Act by enacting Act 9 of 1994. As a result of the amendment introduced in the Act by Act 9 of 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 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. 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 shal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
