JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

The Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 was amended by the Utrarakhand Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No. 10 of 2019) (for short the “2019 Act”), after the current five year term of the elected members of the Panchayat Raj Institutions, in the State of Uttarakhand, came to an end on 15.07.2019. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 8(1)(r), Section 8(8)(1)(d) and Section 10-C of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2019, as notified on 25.07.2019, are under challenge.

2. Section 8(1)(r), as inserted by the 2019 Act, stipulated that a person shall be disqualified for being appointed, and for being a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and a member of the Gram Panchayat, if he has more than two living children. The newly inserted Sub-Section (8) prescribes a further bar on holding two posts simultaneously and, under Sub-Section (1)(d) of Section 8(8) of the 2019 Act, a person shall be disqualified for holding the office of a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a Member of the Gram Panchayat if he is the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a Member of any Cooperative Society.

3. Section 10-C, which was also inserted by the 2019 Act, relates to the election of Up-Pradhan and his term; and, thereunder, the Up-Pradhan shall be elected by the members of the Gram Panchayat, from amongst themselves, in such manner as may be prescribed. Under the proviso thereto, if the Gram Panchayat fails to so elect the Up-Pradhan within the time fixed by, or under, the Rules in that behalf, the prescribed authority may nominate, as the Up-Pradhan, any member of the Gram Panchayat, and the person so nominated shall be deemed to have been duly elected.

4. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government, would submit, with respect to Co-operative Societies, that the State Government has already initiated steps to amend the law, and to restrict disqualification in Cooperative Societies only to its elected members, and not to ordinary members; and it is unnecessary for this Court, therefore, to examine the constitutional validity of Section 8(8)(1)(d) of the 2019 Act.

5. Learned Senior Counsel, and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would fairly state that, in the light of the assurance of the State Government in its Counter-Affidavit and the submission of the learned Advocate General that Section 8(8)(1)(d) of the 2019 Act is in the process of being amended and, in the place of the words “a Member of the co-operative society” the words “elected member” are likely to be substituted, their challenge, in this batch of Writ Petitions, is confined only to the constitutional validity of Section 8(1)(r) and Section 10-C of the 2019 Act, whereby the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 was amended.

6. Elaborate submissions were put forth by Mr. V.B.S. Negi,, Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, and Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Piyush Garg, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Ms. Anjali Benjwal Bahuguna, and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate-General, put forth his submissions on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand. It is convenient to examine the rival contentions, urged by learned counsel on either side, under different heads.

I. IS THE CHALLENGE, TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 10-C OF THE 2019 ACT, VALID?

7. In challenge to the validity of Section 10-C, inserted by the 2019 Act, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that, in compliance with Part IX of the Constitution, there should be direct elections to the Office of Up-Pradhan; and appointment to the post of Up-Pradhan, through indirect elections, violates Part IX of the Constitution of India.

8. On the other hand Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, would submit that the provisions relating to the Up-Pradhan has not been subjected to challenge on the ground of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions; in the absen