Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Mahaveer Prasad Gautam S/o Shri Bhura Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11269 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8076 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9779 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10610 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10846 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11390 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10316 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4189 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10309 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5047 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10822 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11703 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10406 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10995 of 2025
Decided on : 18-08-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.Anil Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Yashodhary Pandey, Mr.Mahindra Shandilya, Mr.Rahul Kamwar, Mr.Anurag Sharma with Mr.Akshat Sharma & Mr.Anoop Meena, Mr.Anshuman Saxena, Mr.Tanveer Ahamad, Mr.Laxmi Kant Malpura, Ms.Naina Saraf, Mr.Jiya Ur Rahman, Mr.Pradeep Sharma, Mr.Laxmi narayan Saini, Mr.Martand Pratap Singh, Mr.Amit Jindal with Ms.Neetu Bhansali, Mr.Shiv Lal Meena, Mr.Vikas Kumar Jakhar, Mr.Devendra Choudhary, Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg
For the Respondent: Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr.Ashutosh Udawat, Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Mr.Sumit Purohit, Mr.Prateek Saxena, Mr.Abhishek Bhardwaj
Removal of elected representatives from Panchayati Raj Institutions without a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice and relevant statutory provisions, rendering such orders invalid.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 243-B and 243-E - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 38, 95 and 98 - Removal of elected representatives from Panchayati Raj Institutions without hearing - Violation of natural justice principles and mandatory provisions - Petitioner administrators were removed from their posts without due process, including lack of hearing and inquiry prior to removal, contravening their rights under law. (Paras 40 and 46)
(B) Natural Justice - Right to a fair hearing - The court highlighted that any administrative order must adhere to principles of natural justice, specifically granting an opportunity to be heard before adverse actions are taken against individuals. (Paras 33 and 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were removed from their posts of Administrator without opportunity of hearing after being appointed post their tenure as Sarpanch. The removal orders lacked procedures defined in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, specifically Section 38 concerning removal and suspension of members. (Paras 11, 17, and 25)
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the removal orders were quashed due to the failure to afford the petitioners opportunity for a hearing, violating natural justice principles. Directions were issued to the respondents to initiate proceedings in accordance with the applicable laws and grant a hearing to the petitioners. (Paras 40 and 41)
Issues: The core issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to a fair hearing before their removal and whether the removal orders were legally sustainable given the lack of a conducted inquiry. (Para 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that administrative or quasi-judicial orders are susceptible to challenge if they do not comply with natural justice, emphasizing that the petitioners had a right to be heard before their removal. The absence of a fair process rendered the removal orders void. (Paras 38 and 39)
Result: The Court quashed the removal orders and granted liberty to the respondents to conduct a proper hearing and inquiry regarding the petitioners' removal. (Paras 40 and 41)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of grassroots democracy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. elected representatives require due process for removal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. commonality in factual questions across writ petitions. (Para 9) |
| 4. petitioners argue removal lacked due process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. respondent defends removal as lawful. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. constitutional provisions governing panchayat elections. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. required pre-decisional hearing for fair treatment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. right to fair trial and the principle of natural justice. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. court quashes removal orders due to process violations. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. urgency for timely elections in panchayati raj. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-
INDEX
(1) Preface
(2) Factual Matrix
(3) Contentions of the petitioners
(4) Contention of the respondents
(5) Analysis, Discussions & Findings
(6) Conclusion & Directions
(7) Parting Remarks
Preface
1. The voice of the people is the voice of God. The latin phrase “vox populi, vox Dei” has been used throughout history from time immemorial to suggest that the will of the people is divinely inspired.
2. Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi said “Panchayati Raj Institution references true democracy.” He believed that a decentralized system of governance, where village communities govern themselves, would be more effective way to achieve true democracy in India.
3. Gandhi’s ideas on Panchayati Raj were rooted in his belief that true democracy should not be confined to the National or State levels, but should extend to the grass root levels, ensuring the participation of all citizens in the decision making process. He saw Panchayats as building blocks of a strong and vibrant democracy, where local needs and aspirations could be addressed directly by the people themselves.
4. Gram Panchayat is the basic governing institution, at the village level, in Indian villages. It is a political institution, akin to the cabinet of a village or a group of villages. Member of the Gram Panchayat are directly elected by the local people and the Gram Panchayat is headed by an elected Sarpanch, who serves as the administrative head of the Panchayat. There are approximately 2,50,000 Gram Panchayats across India. As per the available statistics till March, 2021, Rajasthan alone had 11,341 Gram Panchayats.
5. Gram Panchayat plays a vital role in ensuring local governance and to address the needs and concerns of even the most remote areas. The idea of establishment of Panchayat Raj came into force vide 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India. These Panchayats enable the rural residents to actively participate in governance and ensure that the voices of the marginalized and needy are heard.
6. As per the provisions contained under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, the tenure of a Panchayat is five years, which can be extended for a maximum period of six months thereafter.
7. In a democratic setup, an elected representative, such as members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, serve as the voice of the people they represent. Therefore, removing them from their post, requires careful consideration and due process.
8. Under the rule of law, an elected representative is entitled to hold office for the term unless it is proven that his conduct is disgraceful or that he has misused his power and position. Such an elected representative can certainly be suspended and removed from their post, after following the procedure contained under the provisions of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Whether such representatives can be removed from their post without being given an opportunity to be heard or not is the precise issue, which is required to be decided by this Court in the instant batch of writ petitions.
Factual Matrix:
8. Since common question
