The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for clear and symmetrical legislation regarding motions of no confidence in Panchayat governance, to provide reasonable certainty and confidence to elected representatives.

1. The High Court is getting too many cases and apprehends that many more will come in the matter relating to motions of no confidence being brought against the Mukhias, Pramukh and Up-Pramukh of Panchayats and Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Zila Parishads.

2. Two aspects are coming before the High Court :

(a) Motions of no confidence are being brought against the elected chair-persons or elected representatives without a stated cause whereas it is natural justice that the motions of no confidence must clearly declare on what the object of the motion of no confidence is so than a man who has to face a motion of no confidence knows what he is up against so that he has an opportunity to reply to the specific charges of complaints against him. In so far as this aspect is concerned, it is already a subject matter of other orders of the High Court on which, Additional Advocate General and State counsel, S.C. 6 report that the matter is being looked into for the requisite legislation being updated.

(b) The other aspect is the period during which a motion of no confidence may not be brought when an elected representative is returned to an institution of self government, in the present case the Panchayat. The Court finds that there is no symmetry in this subject. The legislation is the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 . It refers to the Mukhias, Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Panchayat and Zila Parishad, respectively. For instance, a motion of no confidence may not be brought against the Mukhia within the first two years of his being returned to the office (Section 18 of the Act). Then, in so far as the removal of a Pramukh and Uppramukh is concerned, (Section 42) there is no period referred to during which a motion of no confidence may not be brought as is referred to for the Mukhia. Then, in so far as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha are concerned, there is no reference to a motion of no confidence not being brought within the initial period during which they may be returned to their offices. But, should a motion of no confidence against them fail, another motion of no confidence may not be brought within one year from the date of the rejection of the motion of a no confidence (Section 68 of the Act).

3. The legislation of other States were placed before the Court and it has been found that these situations have been provided for in reference to three sets of offices, that is to say, Mukhiya, Pramukh and Uppramukh and Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Other States have provided that during a certain prescribed initial period of these Chairpersons being returned to their offices, a motion of no confidence may not be brought. Thereafter should a motion of no confidence fail then again for a certain prescribed but shorter period a motion of no confidence will not be brought from the date of rejection.

4. The purpose of such a legislation is to provide a reasonable certainty and confidence to the elected representatives to function on their offices and show their merit or efficiency as proof of their offices. It is only after a reasonable period has lapsed that the members of elected bodies may consider that Chairpersons perhaps may not be worth their salt. But, the grievance will have to rest on a specific complaint and the objective declared in advance as the law so provides or should prescribe. Then, even if a motion of a no confidence is brought but fails then there cannot be a repeat action for the askance. The law must recognise a lesser period of immunity during which a motion of no confidence may not be brought again.

5. The Court has examined the three provisions relating to Mukhiyas, Pramukh and Uppramukh and Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. These are Sections 18, 42 and 68 of the Act, On one aspect there is no issue from State counsel at the Bar that there is no symmetry between the law as it stands today and the law needs to be updated. If this void continues perhaps there will be havoc in the functioning o