For No-Confidence Motion To Be Successful Against Adhyaksh/Upadhyaksh Of Zila Parishad, Only Majority Of Members Present & Voting Is Required: Patna HC Full Bench
A full bench of the Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Harish Kumar held that for a motion of “no confidence” to be successful against an Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh of Zila Parishad, the requirement is of the majority of the members present and voting and not majority of the total elected members.The High Court was examining...
A full bench of the Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Harish Kumar held that for a motion of “no confidence” to be successful against an Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh of Zila Parishad, the requirement is of the majority of the members present and voting and not majority of the total elected members.
The High Court was examining Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006 which requires a no-confidence motion against an Adhyaksh or Upadhyaksh to be passed by a majority of the total number of directly elected members of the Zila Parishad at a meeting specially convened for such purpose.
Section 70 (4)(i): “Adhayaksha and Up-Adhayaksha shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of directly elected members from territorial constituencies of the Zila Parishad at a meeting specially convened for the purpose…... No such meeting shall be postponed once the notice for the same has been issued. No quorum shall be required for the special meeting convened to discuss no confidence motion.”
There were two conflicting Division Bench judgements of Patna High Court regarding this matter. In Sarita Kumari vs. the State of Bihar and Others (L.P.A. No. 940 of 2008), the Court held that the majority is of persons directly elected to the Zila Parishad, as opposed to the decision in Dharamsheela Kumari vs. Hemant Kumar and Ors. ((2021) 3 PLJR 346), where the Court held that the majority is of elected members present and participating in the meeting. Owing to these conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to the Full Judge Bench.
The High Court stated that in Section 70(4)(i) of the Act, the phrase “at a meeting especially convened for the purpose” has to be read in addition to the opening part of the clause which provides that the motion of no-confidence be carried out “by a majority of the total number of directly elected members.” Thus, the majority as per Section 70(4) is the majority of the number of members who would be present in the meeting that is specially convened for the purposes of discussing the motion of no-confidence.
Examining the Legislative intent behind Section 70(4), the Court noted that the provision does not allow for the postponement of the meeting and does not require a quorum i.e. no minimum members are required to convene the meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion. These provisions suggest that the majority would only mean the members present and voting since there is no necessity of quorum.
Further, the Court noted that Section 70(4)(i) cannot be construed in isolation and that effect should be given to other provisions. The Court looked into other clauses of Section 70(4) that limit the moving of a no-confidence motion. For instance, a motion cannot be notified during the first two years of Adhyaksh and Upadhyaksh's tenure or a motion cannot be brought during the last six months of the expiry of the term of the Zila Parishad.
Examining these provisions, it observed that “The experience had been that "no confidence" motions were brought about in a causal and cavalier manner and that many a times, when it was brought about, the discussions and voting were thwarted by the machinations of some, which rendered the entire tenure of the Zila Parishad non-functional and the Parishad being reduced to an omphalous of artifice and corruption.” Thus, Section 70(4) has to interpreted be interpreted harmoniously.
The High Court concluded that the writ petitions and appeals shall be decided on the principle laid out by it for Section 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.
Case title: Sangeeta Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar & Ors., (L.P.A No.125 of 2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 41