Legislative provisions regarding No Confidence Motions do not require debate; removal procedures must be adhered to, and gender protections under the Constitution do not exempt elected officials from such removals.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

This intra-court Appeal by a lady Sarpanch of Arangabad Grama Panchayat, who has been removed from the office on a No Confidence Motion, seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s common Order dated 29.11.2025 whereby her W.P.(C) Nos.21068 & 4008 of 2025 came to be negatived. In the said petitions, she had called in question the proceedings at the hands of the Collector concerning the No Confidence Motion.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.S.Das appearing for the appellant seeks invalidation of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:-

(i) The resolution allowing the No Confidence Motion is unsustainable, inasmuch as no debate was held by the members in the special meeting of the Grama Panchayat and thus, it is a kind of non-speaking order.

(ii) The proposed resolution was founded on the wild allegations against the Sarpanch lady and that there is absolutely no evidentiary material supporting the said allegations. Thus, the resolution becomes vulnerable for challenge.

(iii) Nine out of 12 members of the Grama Panchayat, who had triggered the No Confidence Motion and participated in the special meeting, having been disqualified under Sections 25 & 26 of Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, on fault ground, the subject resolution is liable to be voided.

(iv) Appellant-Sarpanch, being a lady, under the provisions of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, has to be given special protection, inasmuch as the office in question is earmarked for women by way of reservation.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned advocate appearing for the intended caveator resist the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and also resolution passed on No Confidence Motion whereby appellant has been removed from the Office of Sarpanch. They refute the submissions made on behalf of the appellant stressing that the law does not require any debate on No Confidence Motion on the floor of Grama Panchayat; Confidence or No Confidence Motions is a democratic process and therefore, the resolution need not reflect the material evidentiary of the fault of Sarpanch.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of learned Single Judge, declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:-

4.1. AS TO REQUIREMENT OF DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF PANCHAYAT BEING A REQUISITE:

(i) The vociferous submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that removal of an elected Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat on No Confidence Motion is a serious matter and therefore, without adequate debate on the floor, the same cannot be sustained, does not merit acceptance. Reasons for this are not far to seek: firstly, Section 24 of the Act, which provides for removal on No Confidence Motion prescribes a specific procedure having democratic elements. Nowhere in the Act, much less in this Section, there is any indication that debate on the floor of the Panchayat, whether adequate or not, is a sine qua non for a No Confidence Motion to pass through. When things are done in a democratic process and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the same cannot be challenged on a ground that does not fit into policy content & intent of the relevant provisions of the Statute. There is absolutely no indication in Section 24 or in any other provision of the Act that debate must be held on the floor of the Panchayat as a pre-condition for passing of No Confidence Motion.

(ii) If the legislature intended debate on No Confidence Motion has to happen, it would have texted Section 24 in a different way. Matters like this ar