[Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act] 15-Months Time For Moving No-Confidence Motion Commences When President Assumes Office: High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the fifteen-month period for calling for a no-confidence motion under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, is to be counted from the date of election not of the first President but from the date when the new President in the middle of the term of the Panchayat assumes office.A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the fifteen-month period for calling for a no-confidence motion under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, is to be counted from the date of election not of the first President but from the date when the new President in the middle of the term of the Panchayat assumes office.
A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed an appeal filed by one P Reethi Mune Gowda, and set aside the order of the single judge bench which had held that she had assumed the office of Bengaluru Grama Panchayat, from when the election results were declared. Since fifteen months expired on 26.05.2023 counted from the date 27.12.2021 when the first President was elected, there was no prohibition for moving the no-confidence motion.
The bench said, “The protection of fifteen months will start from the date of assumption of office by the first President as well as subsequent Presidents who may have the decision to enter the office afresh, who may hold the office during the tenure of the Panchayat.”
It added, “The weapon of no-confidence in a democratic body like Panchayat more often than not, becomes dangerous in hands of power-makers and power-peddlers.”
The Court stated that the object of the proviso is to curb the tendency witnessed in recent times amongst dissatisfied groups who move no-confidence motions for flimsy reasons, against duly elected democratic bodies to destabilise and pursue often unethical political motives.
“Therefore, when the provision in the said Proviso provides for a bar to institute the no-confidence motion for the first fifteen months from the date of his-President's election, it has its own object to achieve,” the Bench said.
Case Background
The petitioner was elected as a member of respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat. The election to the Gram Panchayat was held and the tenure was from the year 2020 to the year 2025. The Panchayat consisted of 26 elected members. One Hameeda was elected as President of the Board of the Panchayat for a period of thirty months as per the notification issued by the Government.
The said term was of the office of the President for thirty months commencing from 18.01.2022 up to the end of July 2024. However, the said President resigned from the post on account of personal grounds in February 2023 and the post of the President of the Gram Panchayat became vacant.
The election to elect a new President took place on 07.03.2023, in which the petitioner came to be elected as President of the Gram Panchayat. Respondent Nos.4 to 23 who are the members of the Panchayat, under complaint dated 18.10.2023 moved a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner to remove her from the post of the President. The petitioner had completed barely eight months of her tenure as President.
The single judge passed the impugned order relying on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Smt. C. Pushpa Vs. State of Karnataka, Panchayath Raj Department (ILR 2019 KAR 2395), wherein it was held that the words “from the date of his election” used in Section 49 would be calculated from the date of the first election for the Adhyaksha-the President.
Findings:
The bench referring to the judgement in C.Pushpa (supra) said “Such interpretation would lead to absurdity. As held in the said decision, the group of words “from the date of his election” could be reckoned from the date of first election of the President. This Court is unable to endorse the aforesaid view.”
It noted that it is a settled principle that the statute would attract literal interpretation when the words and language are clear. It observed “The Courts are not expected to depart from the plain language of the statute unless the statute or section peddles a serious mischief in its application or and it becomes perverse in achieving its object.”
Placing reliance on Apex court judgement in the case of Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji vs. State of Gujarat and another (2004), the court said “The Court cannot add to or amend the section by interpreting it in a different way than it speaks itself in clear manner. The language expressed by the legislature in enacting a section, has to be taken as a revelation of intention of the legislature and the purport of the provision has to be determined accordingly.”
Thus it held that the second proviso clearly provides that no resolution expressing want of confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within 'first fifteen months from the date of his election'.
“His Election” are the crucial words for their purport, which necessarily refers to the President or Vice-President 'who is elected' and holds the office. It does not confine to the President or Vice-President elected for the first time, it is “election of the last president," the Court said.
It added that the proviso provides that a no-confidence motion shall not be moved within the first fifteen months from the date of his election, and has to be construed accordingly.
The bench opined “The idea of what is provided and contemplated in the Second Proviso is to extend protection to the incumbent of the office from frequent subjection to no-confidence motions. It is always desired that a democratically elected body at the grassroot level like Panchayat functions with stability.”
The court was of the view that the President or Vice-President of Panchayat would become prone to be subjected to no-confidence motion by the meddling groups of opposition but for provisions like the Second Proviso. Due to such meddling, the Court held that the Panchayat would not only lose its continuity but as a result, the works of public good to be discharged by the Panchayat may even be derailed.
Allowing the petition the court said “In the instant case, the petitioner assumed the office on 7th March 2023 which will be the relevant date, namely “his election” from which, the fifteen months shall be counted and within such fifteen months from the said date, the moving of no confidence motion remain prohibited by virtue of operation of Second Proviso to Section 49 of the Act."
Appearance: Senior Advocate K.N Phanindra a/w Advocate B. Ramesh for Appellant.
AAG Prathima Honnapura a/w AGA Niloufer Akbar for R1.
Advocate B.J. Somayaji for R3.
Senior Advocate D.R Ravishankar a/w Advocate Saravana S for R4 & 6 TO 23.
Advocate Murali N FOR R5.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
Case Title: P Reethi Mune Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2023
Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 deals with motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha (the President) or Upadhyaksha (the Vice President) of Grama Panchayat.