The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions introduced by the Amendment Act, which fixed the ratio of representatives of the Sarpanches and directly elected members at 70:30, were unconstitutional as they opposed the express provisions of Article 243(C)(2) of the Constitution.

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - By this petition, a challenge has been made to the constitutionality of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 inserted by the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2000, with respect to elections to the Panchayat Samitis.

2. As this issue raised is purely legal, the bare facts out of which this matter arises require to be noticed.

3. In order to strengthen the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the States Part IX was inserted in the Constitution of India by the 73rd amendment with effect from June 1, 1993. The State of Punjab thereafter promulgated the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called the Act) in furtherance of its objectives. It provided for a three-tier system at the grass-roots level in the State of Punjab with the Gram Panchayat being constituted for the village level, the Panchayat Samiti at the Block level and the Zila Parishad at the District level. A provision for direct election to these Institutions was also provided for from territorial constituencies to be determined in the manner stipulated under Act. Section 99 of the Act provided that every Panchayat Samiti would consist of 15 to 25 directly elected members from the territorial constituencies in the Panchayat Samiti area and sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 99 laid down that representatives of the Sarpanches indirectly elected from amongst themselves and directly elected members of the Panchayat Samiti were to be elected in the ratio of 60 : 40. This sub-clause was deleted by Punjab Act of 15 of 1998 on the ground that it was in direct conflict with the provisions of Article 243(C)(2) of the Constitution of India, which provided that all seats to the Panchayat Samiti were to be filled by direct election. The State of Punjab, however, promulgated the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999, copy appended as Annexure P-2 on December 31, 1999, in which Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 99 were substituted and it was once again provided that members of Panchayat Samities were to be elected from both sources i.e. from amongst the Sarpanches and by direct election with the ratio being fixed at 70 : 30.

4. This Ordinance was replaced by the Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called the "Amendment Act"), copy appended as Annexure P-3. Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 99(1) introduced by the amendment have been challenged by the petitioners on the plea that its provisions were violative of the mandate of Article 243(c)(2) of the Constitution of India, which visualised that all seats in a Panchayat, which would include a Panchayat Samiti, were to be filled by persons chosen by direct election though sub- Article (3) thereof did provide for the election of a small number of members by direct election. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that by reducing the ratio of the directly elected members to 30 while retaining 70 for the representatives of the Sarpanches indirectly elected, the provisions of Article 243(C) had been circumvented and as this was a colourable exercise of power, the aforesaid provisions were liable to be struck down on that basis.

5. On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondents in which it has been pointed out that it had been found by the State Government that on account of an irrational distribution of seats introduced by the Amendment of 1998, the link between the higher and lower levels of Panchayati Raj Institutions had been blocked and it had accordingly been decided to restore the institutional linkage between these sister institutions by filling in 70% of the seats from amongst elected Sarpanches and 30% by direct election.

6. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has raised only two arguments in the course of the hearing. He has firstly urged that the very terminology of Article 243(C)(2) required that all elections