SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
K. Sivakumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P. No. 19864 of 2021, W.M.P. Nos. 21122, 21124, 21209 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Selvaraj
For the Respondents: P.S. Raman, V. Ravi, S. Siva Shanmugam, V. Manoharan, N.G.R. Prasad, K.C. Karlmarx

Reservation for village panchayat posts must reflect the actual population demographics; improper reservation violates legal provisions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 57 - Reservation for the post of President of Nayakkaneri village panchayat for Scheduled Castes women challenged - The court found that the reservation was improper as no Scheduled Castes individuals existed in the village, violating Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995. (Paras 10, 30)

(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable despite the bar under Article 243-O, as it did not challenge the election process but the legality of the reservation notification. (Paras 12, 30)

(C) Fraud on Election - The court determined that the fifth respondent was not qualified to contest due to improper inclusion in the electoral roll, constituting a fraud on the election process. (Paras 18, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the reservation for the post of President of Nayakkaneri village panchayat for Scheduled Castes women, arguing that the village had no Scheduled Castes population, and the fifth respondent was improperly included in the electoral roll.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the reservation notification and the election of the fifth respondent as President, directing the government to reserve the post under general women or Scheduled Tribes category.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the writ petition and the legality of the reservation for the post of President.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reservation was invalid due to the absence of Scheduled Castes individuals in the village and that the writ petition was maintainable as it did not interfere with the election process.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 03.09.2021 in G.O. (Ms.) No. 108, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-1) Department, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 2, dated 03.09.2021, and quash the same only insofar as it relates to the reservation for the post of President of the Nayakkaneri village panchayat, Madhanur panchayat union, Tirupathur district, for Scheduled Castes women.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 03.09.2021, in G.O. (Ms.) No. 108 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-1) Department, which relates to the reservation for the post of President of the Nayakkaneri Village Panchayat, Madhanur Panchayat Union, Thirpathur District, for Scheduled Castes women.

Facts of the case:

2. The first petitioner is a former panchayat President. He was elected and functioned as President of Nayakkaneri village panchayat in the year 2011 to 2016. The second petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes community and his father was elected as President of Nayakkaneri village panchayat from 1986 to 1991. The second petitioner was also elected as Ward Member in the year 2006, of ward No. 12 of Madhanur panchayat union, which reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

3. The Nayakkaneri village is situated in a mountain, 864 meters above the sea level. It consists nine wards and total population is about 7000 in which, voters are 3440. Majority of population viz. 66% belong to Scheduled Tribes and the remaining 34% of the population to other communities. In the said panchayat, no one belongs to Scheduled Castes community in the entire village. Therefore, the government of Tamil Nadu has reserved the post of Ward Members viz. Ward Nos. 1 to 8 for Scheduled Tribes candidate from the year 1986 and the post of President was also reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidate from 1986 to 2011. In the year 2011, it has changed from the reservation for Scheduled Tribes to general by rotation. Only one ward viz. Ward No. 9 alone was allotted for general and other wards were reserved only for Scheduled Tribes. It was continued for more than 25 years. Though the said panchayat was allotted for general woman in the year 2016, for the post of village panchayat President, no election was conducted from 2016 to 2021.

4. While being so, the first respondent issued the impugned order thereby reserved the post of President of Nayakkaneri village panchayat for Scheduled Castes women under Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 r/w. Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

Petitioners' counsel submissions:

5. Mr. K.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the fifth respondent submitted nomination for the post of President and she is elected and declared as unopposed candidate for the post of Presidentm moreover, her name is not even found in the Ward No. 9 of the Nayakkaneri village. Therefore, she is not qualified to contest in the election for the post of President as per Section 33 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. In fact, her application for inclusion of her name in ward No. 9 of Nayakkaneri village panchayat has been rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer, after conducting field inspection on 21.09.2021.

5.1. Further, the Returning Officer/Block Development Officer of Madhanur panchayat union by its proceedings dated 23.09.2021, submitted a table before this Court consisting of eligible voters in each ward of the Nayakkaneri village panchayat. As per the said table, there is no voters and zero elector/voter of Scheduled Castes candidate in the ninth ward of Nayakkaneri village panchayat. As on 2

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top