SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1776 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23017 of 2023)
Decided On : 07-02-2024
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 – Sections 3 and 4 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 – Section 3 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 – Rule 11 – No-Confidence Motion against Sarpanch – Validity of – Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed to produce Validity Certificate within 12 months from date of his election – Protective umbrella of Section 3 of Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by Section 3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no valid application pending on date of commencement of said Act – Appellant No.1 has ceased to be a member because of automatic disqualification – In view of this, proceedings of Tahsildar rejecting No-Confidence Motion on the ground that voting requirement of three-fourth of members “entitled to sit and vote”, was not fulfilled, cannot be sustained and has rightly been set aside by High Court – High Court was also justified in directing that Appellant No.2 should stop exercising powers as a Sarpanch and in further directing that election for post of village Sarpanch be notified afresh – Judgement and order of High Court affirmed. (Paras 40, 42 and 43)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The ‘war’ in this case is over the validity of a No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel, the Sarpanch (Village head) of Jambulani Gram Panchayat. However, there is a ‘battle’ within, which entirely determines the result of the war. It is on the validity of the membership of Appellant No. 1 – Sudhir Vilas Kalel in the Panchayat. A Motion of No Confidence is to be carried by not less than three-fourth of the total number of members who are entitled, to ‘sit’ and ‘vote’. If the Appellant No. 1 was entitled to ‘Sit’ as a member on 19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2 cannot ‘Stand’, to deploy a Denningesque phrase. The High Court has found against the appellants. Aggrieved, they are before us in appeal.
3. Was the Appellant No.1, in law, a member of the Panchayat, entitling him to vote, is the question that arises for consideration in this case. Is the Appellant No. 1 covered by the protective umbrella under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Extension Act, 2023”]? If the answer is in the affirmative, the election of the Appellant No. 1 as a reserved Member in the election of the Gram Panchayat of Village Jambulani would stand validated. Consequently, the No Confidence Motion expressing No Confidence in the Appellant No. 2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel (the Sarpanch) would also stand nullified. If Appellant No. 1 is held not to be entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, then he would be deemed to have vacated his seat and consequently, the No Confidence Motion would stand carried. For a fuller understanding, the background facts and the statutory regime need to be set out in some detail.
Brief facts and the Legislative Regime:
4. On 30.12.2020, the Appellant No. 1 filed his nomination papers for contesting elections as a Member of the Panchayat of Village Jambulani, District Satara on a seat reserved for the OBC category. As early as on 03.02.2013 itself, the Appellant No. 1 was issued a Caste Certificate by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Satara certifying that he belongs to ‘Lonari’ Caste which is an Other Backward Class. He had on the same day of filing his nomination papers i.e. on 30.12.2020 applied for a Validity Certificate. This Validity Certificate is an essential requirement under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the “Caste Certificate Act, 2000”]. There are elaborate rules framed under this Act which will be discussed later in the judgment.
5. Under Section 3 of this Act, any person belonging to Other Backward Class for the purpose of contesting for any elective post in any local authority, should apply in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the Competent Authority for the issuance of a Caste Certificate. Under Section 4 of this Act, the Competent Authority is entitled to issue a Caste Certificate. This is a Certificate which the Appellant No. 1 possessed on 03.02.2013. However, this alone is not conclusive. Under Section 4(2), the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority would be valid subject to the verification and grant of Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Under Section 6 of this Act, the Government is authorized to constitute a Scrutiny Committee and prescribe the area of its jurisdiction. Under Section 6(2) of this Act, after obtaining the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority, any person, desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions provided to the said caste, is authorized to make an application, w
A person who has ceased to be a member because of automatic disqualification, cannot continue as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.
Gram Panchayat members with caste validity certificates obtained and submitted prior to or soon after election are not automatically disqualified under Section 10(1A) and can validly participate in n....
The mandatory nature of Section 10(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and the retrospective termination of the election as per the statute, emphasizing the statutory limitations on....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the submission of the validity certificate within the stipulated period under Section 51-1B of the Act 1965, and the applicability of Section ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'Motion of No Confidence' must fulfill the mandatory requirements set out in Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, a....
COVID-19 virus - Election of petitioner disqualified because certificate not produced within period - Guidelines of supreme court- Petitioner cannot be said disqualification under S. 5B of Act, only ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effect of COVID guidelines on the delayed production of the caste validity certificate and the applicability of settled law on the mandato....
The time required to obtain a certified copy is excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing a dispute concerning a no-confidence motion under local law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of ratification in the Gram Sabha for a no confidence motion passed against a directly elected Sarpanch, as per the amended provision....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.