The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of the State Legislature to enact the Amendment Act and its alignment with the Constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 243-C, 243-D, and 243-E.

Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL validity of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 and subsection 3 of Section 5 of the karnataka Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) act, 1996 - The court discussed the relevant acts and sections, including Articles 243-C, 243-D, and 243-E of the Constitution, and their interpretations. The key legal provisions were analyzed to determine the competence of the State Legislature to enact the Amendment Act and its impact on the institution of Panchayat Raj.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, office bearers of Panchayats, challenged the Amendment Act that restricted the term of their office to twenty months, alleging it was contrary to the Constitution and politically motivated.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Legislature had the power to enact the Amendment Act and that it did not violate the Constitutional provisions. It held that the Amendment Act was intended to provide opportunities for different reserved categories and was in furtherance of the constitutional obligations imposed by the 73rd Amendment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the competence of the State Legislature to enact the Amendment Act, its impact on the rights of the petitioners, and whether it was politically motivated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Legislature had the power to enact the Amendment Act and that it was not contrary to the Constitutional provisions. It emphasized that the Amendment Act was intended to provide opportunities for different reserved categories and was in furtherance of the constitutional obligations imposed by the 73rd Amendment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims and declined to grant the continuation of interim direction.

( 1 ) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 and subsection 3 of Section 5 of the karnataka Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) act, 1996, (hereinafter called the 'amendment act') is the subject matter of controversy between the parties in these petitions. It is submitted that the State Legislature had no competence to amend the Principal Act being at No. 14 of 1993. By way of amendment, the State Legislature has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but has also been guilty of passing the laws which were contrary to Part IX of the Constitution of India. The amendments are alleged to be resulting in uncertainty in the institution of Panchayat Raj and instead of strengthening such institution, would result in its weakening. It is further contended that the amendment Act was contrary to the mandate of Articles 243-C, 243-D and 243-E of the constitution. It is further submitted that the amendment Act was politically motivated which was intended to curtail the offices held by the writ petitioners resulting in loss of benefits, powers and the emoluments conferred upon by the Principal Act.

( 2 ) FACTS in the petitions are almost admitted. The petitioners are all office bearers of Panchayats, holding such offices as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluka and Zilla Panchayats. All the petitioners are also admittedly, elected members of the panchayats. By way of amendment Act, the term of office has been restricted to twenty months from the date of their election to the offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. The office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is stated to be co-terminous with the term of the panchayats which is admittedly five years. The amendment act is stated to be contrary to Chapter IX of the Constitution as noted hereinabove.

( 3 ) THE Amendment Act has been termed to be arbitrary affecting the basic structure of the constitution. It is contended that security of tenure to the offices held by the petitioners is one of the basic structures of the Panchayat Raj Act which is embodiment of the Constitutional amendment and cannot be taken by introducing the amendment restricting continuity of office of the writ petitioners. The amendment is stated to be having no rational nexus or relation with any policy or object sought to be achieved by the respondents.

( 4 ) IN the reply affidavits filed in some of the petitions and adopted in other Writ Petitions, the respondents have submitted that the present Writ Petitions were not maintainable as no fundamental right or legal right of any petitioner has been taken away. It is submitted that under sections 138, 148, 177 and 186 of the Principal Act, amended by the Amendment Act, a provision has been made by curtailing the term of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat to twenty months from the date of election or till such term he ceases to be a Member of Taluk or Zilla Panchayat whichever is earlier. The offices of Chair persons and of Panchayat Raj institutions are reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the State that is 18. 17 per cent and 5. 25 per cent respectively and in the case of backward classes A and B categories, reservation is 33. 33 per cent and remaining 43. 25 per cent unreserved. While rotating the reservation from Panchayat to panchayat, it is ensured that the total number reserved for each category remains the same of that they are allotted to other Panchayats. It is claimed that this rotation fulfils the Constitutional mandate in the matter of reservation as required under Article 243-D of the Constitution of India. It is stated that in the workshop held on 21. 11. 96 to consider the P. R. Naik Committee's report, the participants expressed their different views with respect to the term of office to the chair persons. Some of the participants wanted the term to continue for 5 years and others wanted the same to be restricted for two and half years on par with Chair persons of M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document