1. Challenge to the removal of a Party Leader (Gatneta) and approval of a successor under the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 466
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Sau. Sangeeta W/o Sunil Shinde - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5059 of 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5605 of 2021]
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by democratic process cuts at roots of democracy and certainly it is in violation of Rules.
Imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by democratic process cuts at roots of democracy and certainly it is in violation of Rules.
Subject
Political Party - Leadership
Act Referred
Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987: R.5(1), R.3(1)(b)
Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986: S.2(l), S.3, S.5
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats Act, 1961: S.28
Constitution of India: Art.243N
Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986: S.2(l), S.3, S.5
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats Act, 1961: S.28
Constitution of India: Art.243N
Headnote
Local Bodies – Selection as Group Leader of Political Party – Leader of a municipal party has to be chosen by Agadi or front and not by any outsider – Change of leader has to be in same democratic process of induction, in absence of any other method prescribed under Rules concerned – Once birth of a leader in a group is by way of election by group, Group Leader elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through very same process of election in the group, in absence of any rules to the contra – Imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by democratic process cuts at roots of democracy and certainly it is in violation of Rules – Appellant was elected as Gatneta when she enjoyed the support of all members of INCPS Party – However, after she decided to walk on a different path, she lost support of majority of INCPS Party and as such, could not have thrust her leadership on majority – No reason to interfere with view taken by High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 18, 22, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.3.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 whereby District Collector has granted approval to the selection of respondent No. 3 – Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party (INCPS Party).
Findings of Court:
It is the appellant who has acted contrary to the wishes of the Party and chose to contest the election of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rival group. It is for anybody to guess as to who has indulged in horse-trading.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s).:Sanjay Kharde, Satyajeet Kharde, Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sidheshwar Namdev Biradar, Yash Prashant Sonavane, Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s).:Sanjay Kharde, Satyajeet Kharde, Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sidheshwar Namdev Biradar, Yash Prashant Sonavane, Yogesh Ramesh Joshi, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims illegal removal due to fixed tenure and outsider intervention; respondents argue removal was based on a democratic majority resolution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The court observed that leadership in democratic bodies depends on majority confidence and the removal followed the same procedure as the initial appointment. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. A party leader continues only while enjoying majority support; internal party rules cannot override the democratic principle of majority will. (Para 22 , 26 , 27 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upholding the District Collector's approval of the new Party Leader affirmed. (Para 29 )
6. How should the change of a Group Leader in a municipal or Panchayat Samiti party be conducted?
In the absence of other prescribed methods, the change of leader must follow the same democratic process of induction used for the original appointment, ensuring the leader is elected by the group and not imposed by an outsider. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. Can a party leader rely on internal rules to claim a fixed tenure against a majority vote for removal?
No. In a democratic setup, an elected representative stays in power only as long as they enjoy the support of the majority. Internal rules cannot be interpreted to allow a minority leader to thrust leadership upon a majority. (Para 26 , 27 )
8. What is the legal weight of rules and regulations submitted by a party leader under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987?
Such rules are not equivalent to rules framed under statutory power and cannot be used to override the democratic will of the party or the specific resolutions governing the appointment and removal of leaders. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.3.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 whereby the District Collector has granted approval to the selection of respondent No. 3 – Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘INCPS Party’).
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
The appellant along with respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were elected as members of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur in the elections, which were held in the year 2017. It is not in dispute that all four of them had contested the election to the Panchayat Samiti on the authorisation of the Indian National Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘INC Party’). As such, the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 formed a ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party.
The first meeting of the INCPS Party was held on 1.3.2017. The said meeting was presided over by Shri Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. As per the resolution passed in the said meeting, it was resolved to select the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. It was further resolved to authorise the appellant to prepare proposals by making rules and regulations and submit the same to the District Collector, Ahmednagar. In the said meeting, it was further resolved that in the event it was decided to change the Party Leader/Party Whip, Mr. Jayantrao Sasane, the then District President of INC Party will have all the powers, so also the power, to submit a proposal to the District Collector in accordance with the rules.
Accordingly, the necessary information was submitted by the appellant to the District Collector on 7.3.2017, informing about the formation of INCPS Party so also she being elected as the leader of the said Party. The District Collector, Ahmednagar vide order dated 8.3.2017 recorded in Form (4) as per Rule 5(1) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’) about the registration of the Aghadi; the name of the members; and the name of the Party Leader.
A complaint dated 19.12.2019 came to be filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 against the appellant before the District President, Ahmednagar District INC Party alleging therein that the appellant during her tenure of two and half years had neither taken the members of INCPS Party into confidence nor had convened any meeting of INCPS Party.
According to the contesting respondents, a notice of meeting convened on 4.1.2020 came to be served upon the appellant for change of Gatneta on 26.12.2019.
In the meeting held on 4.1.2020 under the Chairmanship of Ahmednagar District INC Party President Mr. Balasaheb Salunke, which was attended by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, a unanimous resolution was passed for removing the appellant from the post of Party Leader of INCPS Party. Vide another resolution passed in the said meeting, it was resolved to appoint respondent No.3 as Party Leader/Party Whip of INCPS Party and she was also authorised for issuing whips. Respondent No.3 was also authorised to submit a proposal to the District Collector, Ahmednagar regarding change of Party Leader/Party Whip.
Respondent No.3 submitted a proposal on 6.1.2020, which came to be approved by the District Collector vide order of the same date.
It further appears that the election to the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti was held on 7.1.2020. In the said election, the appellant came to be elected as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti.
It is pertinent to note that prior to the said election, two conflicting whips came t
