The interpretation of 'majority' of the members of the panchayat notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the KPR Act, 1994 is crucial in determining the validity of a motion of no-confidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are elected members of the 3rd respondent panchayat. The petitioners, along with five other members of the 3rd respondent Panchayat, issued notice to move a motion expressing want of confidence in the President of the Grama Panchayat in terms of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (In short ‘the KPR Act, 1994’). A meeting was convened by the authorised officer, namely the 4th respondent, on 06-10-2023. Only seven members, including the petitioners who had issued notice, had attended the meeting. All the seven persons who attended the meeting supported the motion of no-confidence. However, the 4th respondent declared the motion as not carried. This is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Sri. K.C. Vincent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the total number of members in the Karimannoor Grama Panchayat is fourteen. It is submitted that one of the members was declared disqualified, and the decision has been upheld by this court by the judgment in W.P (C) No. 6870/2023. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 157 of the KPR Act, 1994, the quorum for a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence against the President is one-half of the elected members of the panchayat. It is submitted that since 7 out of 13 members had taken part in the meeting, there was a clear quorum to consider a motion of no-confidence. It is submitted that since all seven members had supported the motion, the 4th respondent could not have declared the motion as having not been carried. It is submitted that the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to an order quashing Ext.P2 and declaring that the motion of no-confidence was carried on 16-10-2023 and that the 5th respondent is not entitled to continue as the President of the Grama Panchayat.

3. Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the State Election Commission, would submit that there is absolutely no illegality in the decision taken by the 4th respondent. It is submitted that under sub-section (12) of Section 157 of the KPR Act, 1994, the motion has to be carried with the support of the majority of the number of members of the panchayat notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of that Act. It is submitted that notwithstanding that one of the members was declared to be disqualified, for the purposes of sub-section (12) of Section 157 of the KPR Act, 1994, the number of members has to be treated as 14. It is submitted that since only seven members attended the meeting and though the said seven members supported the motion of no-confidence, the same cannot be said to be a majority of the number of members of the panchayat notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the KPR Act, 1994 as the said number only represents 50% of the total number of members notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the KPR Act, 1994. It is also submitted that subsection (1) of Section 157 of the KPR Act, 1994 must be deemed to be a provision providing for a special majority. Since the word ‘majority’ is used in sub-section (12) of Section 157 of the KPR Act, 1994, coupled with the requirement that it must be a majority of the members notified under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the KPR Act, 1994, the only meaning that can be ascribed is that the majority mentioned in sub-section (12) of Section 157 should be a majority of the number of members under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the KPR Act, 1994. In other words, it is submitted that 7 out of 14 does not represent the majority of fourteen, and it only represents 50%. It is submitted that the word majority must be signify something more than 50%.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in reply would submit that the provision of sub-section (12) of Section 157 of the KPR Act, 1994 was amended with effect from 24-03-1999. It is submitted that the provisions of sub-section (12) as they stood prior to 24-03-1999 specified more tha