1. Interpretation dispute regarding the threshold required to pass a no-confidence motion against elected local government representatives under their respective governing legislation. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 333
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Rashmi Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3309 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12490 / 2024)
with
Sangeeta Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9573 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 37207 of 2024)
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Important Points
The requirement for a no-confidence motion to succeed is a majority of the total elected members, not just those present at the meeting, ensuring respect for democratic principles.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Local Governance
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 – Sections 44(3) and 70(4) – No-confidence motion – Removal of Adhayaksha (or Up-Adhayaksha) of Zila Parishad – Adhyaksha or Up-Adhyaksha can be removed only if resolution of no-confidence is supported by more than half of total number of elected members for it to pass – More than half of total number of directly elected persons would be required to support no-confidence motion, which would be considered and deliberated at a Special Meeting – Thrust of expression ‘at a meeting specially convened’ is only to the extent that motion shall not be considered or voted upon in an ordinary meeting – It cannot be construed in such a manner which would restrict meaning of ‘total members’ – It was not the intention of Legislature that no-confidence motion must only be decided by those members present at Special Meeting – Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 16, 17 and 24)
(B) Local Self-Government – Court’s Role in Protecting Representative Democracy – Democracy entails that will of people is paramount – System of Panchayats, encapsulated in Part IX of Constitution, reflects and embodies these values – By bringing democratic principles to grassroots, such institutions establish a multi-tiered mechanism for local self-governance – Once a representative is duly elected, law must reflect a deference to sanctity of electoral decision to be represented by a certain individual – Similarly, respect also ought to be accorded to leaders elected from among the representatives – These ideals of democracy form part of Basic Structure of our Constitution – Concomitantly, as custodian of Constitution, Supreme Court bears responsibility to preserve these ideals and principles – Democratic spirit of our nation cannot be compromised, and will of people and voice of their representatives must not be undermined. (Paras 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed by a Full Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein it has answered a reference, holding that a no-confidence motion brought under Sections 44(3) and 70(4) of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (Panchayat Act) would succeed if a ‘majority of the members present’ vote in favour of the motion at the Special Meeting convened for this purpose.
Findings of Court:
All no-confidence motions across State of Bihar, which remain pending or are to be taken up in future under Sections 44(3) and 70(4) of Panchayat Act, shall be considered strictly as per procedure contained in said Sub-Sections and threshold outlined in Paragraph 45 of this Judgment.
Result : Appeals allowed with directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. Anshuman Harsh, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Sarim Naved, Adv. Mr. Nand Sagar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Adv. Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Noumaan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv. Dr. Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Sanskriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. Anshuman Harsh, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Sarim Naved, Adv. Mr. Nand Sagar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Adv. Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Noumaan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv. Dr. Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Sanskriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend that a majority of the total elected members is mandatory for a motion to succeed, whereas respondents rely on the majority of those present and voting. (Para 5 , 13 , 14 , 19 )
3. The requirement for a majority of the total elected members ensures democratic legitimacy and prevents manipulation of the no-confidence process by a mere minority of members. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 43 )
4. A motion of no-confidence against elected Panchayat representatives requires the affirmative support of a majority of the total number of elected members, not just those present and voting. (Para 45 , 46 )
5. The impugned judgment is set aside; the requirement for a majority of total elected members for passing a no-confidence motion is affirmed. (Para 47 )
6. What is the threshold for a no-confidence motion to pass against an Adhyaksha or Pramukh under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006?
A no-confidence motion succeeds only if supported by a majority of the total number of elected members from the territorial constituencies, rather than just those present and voting. (Para 15 , 17 , 45 )
7. Does the exclusion of a quorum requirement for a special meeting imply that a simple majority of members present is sufficient to carry a no-confidence motion?
No. The absence of a quorum requirement is intended to facilitate the speed and finality of the meeting, not to alter the statutory threshold for passing a motion, which remains a majority of the total membership. (Para 23 , 24 )
8. How does the requirement for a majority of total elected members protect the democratic integrity of local representative institutions?
Requiring a majority of the total members prevents the removal of elected leaders by a small minority of members, thereby protecting the stability of local governments from potential abuse or manipulated attendance at special meetings. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, CJI.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2024 (Impugned Judgment) passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (High Court), wherein it has answered a reference, holding that a no-confidence motion brought under Sections 44 (3) and 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (Panchayat Act) would succeed if a ‘majority of the members present’ vote in favour of the motion at the Special Meeting convened for this purpose.
A. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY OF THESE CASES
3. Before we proceed to our analysis, it may be relevant to first elucidate how this question was referred to the Full Bench of the High Court.
3.1. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, in Sarita Kumari v. State of Bihar , 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 1485 considered the validity of a no-confidence motion brought against the Adhayaksha (or Up-Adhayaksha) of a Zila Parishad under Section 70 (4) of the Panchayat Act and held that the motion would succeed only if a majority of the total number of members of the Parishad voted in favour of it. This was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in an intra-court appeal.2[High Court of Judicature at Patna, Letters Patent Appeal No. 940 of 2008, order dated 20.08.2009]
3.2. Twelve years thereafter, in the case of Dharamsheela Kumari v. Hemant Kumar , 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 1276, the High Court considered various issues on the interpretation of Section 44 (3) of the Panchayat Act, pertaining to the removal of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti through a no-confidence motion. A Division Bench of the High Court, thereupon, concluded that the affirmative vote of a majority of only those members of the Samiti ‘who are present at the Special Meeting’ is sufficient for the said motion to succeed.
3.3. We may highlight that Sections 44 (3) and 70(4) of the Panchayat Act are pari materia in all material aspects, with the only difference being that the former applies to the elected leaders of the Panchayat Samiti, while the latter pertains to the Heads of the Zila Parishad. There is no dispute that the interpretation of either sub-section would be applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the other.
3.4. In late 2023 and early 2024, efforts were made to initiate no-confidence motions against the heads of various Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads across Bihar, including against the Appellants. Although more than half of the members present at the Special Meetings to consider the no-confidence motion supported it in most cases, this did not amount to a majority of the total elected members of the Samiti or Parishad. In some other cases, since less than fifty percent of the total membership attended the Special Meeting, it was decided that the no-confidence motion could not be considered. In most such instances, the State Administration relied on the interpretation in Sarita Kumari (supra) and held that the no-confidence motions had failed. In other cases, however, the prescribed Authority, supported by Dharamsheela Kumari (supra), declared the no-confidence motions to have passed. Formal orders reflecting either outcome were also issued. This prompted the aggrieved persons from across the State of Bihar to file a slew of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. Some of these petitions were resolved, either in one way or another, resulting in intra-court appeals filed by the aggrieved litigants under the Letters Patent jurisdiction of the High Court.
3.5. Since the divergent views of the two Division Benches led to inconsistency in the decision being taken in these matters, various cases, including those of the Appellants, were referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to, “whether in a “no confidence” motion brought against a Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh of Zila Parishad under the [Panchayat Act], the motion would be successfully ca
