Goa Election Commission Must Decide Supervening Panchayat Member Disqualifications, Rules Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court at Goa Clarifies Election Commission's Role in Handling Disqualifications Incurred Post-Election by Village Panchayat Members.

Goa: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa has clarified the jurisdiction of the Goa State Election Commission regarding the disqualification of sitting Village Panchayat members. The Court held that the Commission is the competent authority under Section 11 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, to decide questions concerning disqualifications incurred by a member after they have been elected, often referred to as supervening disqualifications.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta quashed an order by the Goa State Election Commission that had refused to entertain a complaint seeking the disqualification of eleven members of the Village Panchayat of St. Lawrence of Agassaim . The Commission had dismissed the complaint on the ground that its jurisdiction under Section 10(f) of the Act was limited to disqualifications existing prior to election, and that post-election issues should be handled by the Director of Panchayat under provisions related to removal for misconduct.

Case Background

The petitioner, Hilario Pereira, a voter in Agassaim , alleged that the eleven Panchayat members had incurred disqualification under Section 10(f) of the Act by having a direct or indirect monetary interest in work undertaken by the Panchayat. He claimed payments were made directly to the members' bank accounts from the Village Panchayat's funds without proper resolution or authority.

Aggrieved by the Election Commission's refusal to hear his complaint regarding these alleged disqualifications, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Arguments Before the Court

Senior Advocate S. D. Padiyar , appearing for the petitioner, argued that a combined reading of Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, indicates that the State Election Commission has jurisdiction over both pre-existing and supervening disqualifications. He emphasized that Section 11 specifically refers to a "Member of a Panchayat" becoming subject to disqualification, and Section 12(1)(a) uses the phrase "is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 10." Citing Supreme Court precedents interpreting similar provisions in the Constitution (Articles 191 and 192) concerning Members of Parliament and State Legislatures (specifically Saka Venkata Rao and Brudaban Nayak ), he contended that "has become subject to" refers to disqualifications acquired after election. He also relied on a previous Goa High Court decision ( Shri Kanhoba Vishnu Raul ) clarifying that an aggrieved person can directly approach the Election Commission under Section 11, overturning a prior interpretation that a reference by the Panchayat was mandatory ( Shri Mafaldo Fernandes ).

Counsel for the Election Commission and the respondent Panchayat members supported the Commission's stand, arguing that Section 11 applied only to pre-election disqualifications and that removal for misconduct post-election fell under Section 210A of the Act, to be decided by the Director of Panchayat. Some respondents also argued the factual allegations amounted to misappropriation, actionable under Section 210A, not disqualification under Section 10(f). They also reiterated the argument that Section 11 required a reference from the Panchayat, not a direct petition.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously examined Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and compared them with the language used in Articles 191, 192, and 243F of the Constitution of India, which deal with similar disqualifications for legislators and Panchayat members.

The bench noted the striking similarity in phraseology, particularly "for being chosen as, and for being" in Section 10 and Article 243F(1), and "has become subject to any disqualification" in Section 11 and Article 243F(2). Relying heavily on the consistent interpretation by the Supreme Court in cases like Saka Venkata Rao , Brudaban Nayak , and Election Commission of India vs. Bajrang Bahadur Singh , the Court affirmed that the phrase "has become subject to any disqualification" or "becomes subject to" specifically refers to disqualifications incurred after a person has been elected as a member.

The Court held: > "It is pertinent to note that the same wording is to be found in Section 10 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, as well as in Section 11, which contemplate the same phraseology “has become subject to any disqualification”, we have no difficulty in accepting the submission of Mr. Padiyar that Section 11 contemplate a disqualification incurred subsequent to a person becoming a Member of the Panchayat."

The bench further clarified the interpretation of Section 12(1)(a), which states that a seat becomes vacant if a member "is or becomes subject to" disqualification. The Court reasoned that "is subject to" refers to pre-existing disqualifications, while "becomes subject to" refers to supervening disqualifications. Section 12(2) explicitly excludes questions under Section 12(1)(a) from the jurisdiction of the Block Development Officer, reinforcing that these disqualification questions are meant to be decided under Section 11 by the State Election Commission.

The Court also distinguished Section 210A (removal for misconduct) from Section 10 (disqualification). It noted that while misconduct might lead to disqualification, the specific grounds under Section 10 (like having a monetary interest in Panchayat work) constitute disqualifications that result in the seat becoming vacant, and the authority to decide such disqualifications, particularly those arising after election, is the Election Commission under Section 11.

Finally, the Court addressed the argument that Section 11 requires a reference. Citing the Kanhoba Vishnu Raul judgment, the bench reiterated that the earlier view requiring a Panchayat reference was clarified, and Section 11 does not bar an aggrieved person from directly approaching the Election Commission.

Decision

In light of its findings, the Bombay High Court at Goa concluded that the State Election Commission had erred in refusing jurisdiction. The Court quashed and set aside the Commission's order dated November 19, 2024, and restored the petitioner's case to the file of the State Election Commission with a direction to decide the disqualification claim on its merits expeditiously.

This judgment clarifies a crucial aspect of Panchayat law in Goa, establishing the State Election Commission as the primary authority for adjudicating disqualifications of elected Panchayat members, including those incurred after assuming office.