1. This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of subs-ss. (1) and (5) of S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act as amended by Act 13 of 2000 requiring an officer nominated by the State Election Commission to receive a copy of a resolution of motion for no confidence in the President or Vice President of a Panchayat and to preside over the meeting called to consider it.

2. Background S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') deals with the subject of no confidence in President or Vice President of a Panchayat. The procedure for considering such a motion has also been provided under the Section and there are no separate rules prescribed thereupon.

3. Sub-s. (3) of the Act, when it was originally framed, read as under:

"(2) Written notice in such form as may be prescribed of the intention to move any motion referred to in sub-s. (1) signed by such member of elected members of the Panchayat concerned as shall constitute not less than one-third of the sanctioned strength of elected members of that Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf."

A copy of the no confidence motion which was proposed to be moved was required to be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice to the officer authorised by the Government specifically in that behalf. The Government had authorised the Deputy Director of Panchayats to exercise the powers under sub-ss. (2) and (5) of S.157 of the Act. Under sub-s. (5) of S.157, as it stood originally, such a meeting for consideration of the proposed resolution of no confidence had to be presided over by an officer authorised by the Government, who was again the Deputy Director of Panchayats.

4. By Act 13 of 1999, sub-s. (5) of S.157 was amended and substituted by sub-ss. (5) and (5A) with effect from 24th March, 1999. The sub-sections as amended by 1999 Act read as under:

"(5) In a meeting convened under this Section -

(a) in the case of a resolution against the Vice President, the President.

(b) in the case of a resolution against the President, the Vice President and

(c) when the President or Vice President is by reason of his absence at the place or by any other reason unable to preside over the meeting as stipulated in paragraph (s) or paragraph (b) the Chairman of Standing Committee, in the order of priority described in sub-s. (1) of S.162, shall preside over the meeting.

Provided that if no reason as provided in this section is able to preside over the meeting, such other member as may be elected from among them by the members present at the meeting shall preside over the meeting.

(5A) The officer authorised under sub-s. (2) shall take part as an observer in the meeting convened under the provisions of this Section."

(English translation of the original in Malayalam. No authorised translation in English of the Act is available). This amendment empowered the President to preside over such a meeting when a no confidence motion was moved against Vice President; and the Vice President when the motion was moved against the President. Sub-s. (5A) provided that the officer authorised under sub-s. (2) would take part only as an observer in the meeting convened under the provisions of this Section.

5. Further amendments were made by Ordinance No. 3 of 2000 which was subsequently replaced by Act 13 of 2000. While moving the legislative bill for replacing Ordnance No. 3 of 2000, the reason stated for the amendment brought forward was that apprehensions were expressed with regard to the impartiality of an officer of the State who would preside over the meetings to consider the no confidence motion which was crucial. Hence, it was decided to entrust the power of presiding over such meetings to an officer au