Supreme Court Sets Aside No-Confidence Motion Against Gram Panchayat Sarpanch

The case of Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule vs. Tahsildar Sinnar & Ors. involved a legal challenge against the validity of a no-confidence motion passed against a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s order and declaring that the no-confidence motion was not passed by the required statutory majority.

The central issue was the interpretation of the required two-thirds majority for passing a no-confidence motion under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Court examined whether disqualified members should be counted while determining the total strength of the Panchayat for computing the two-thirds majority.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a no-confidence motion moved against the appellant, the elected Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra. A special meeting was convened on September 14, 2018, where eight out of nine members were present. Six members voted in favor of the motion, while two opposed it.

However, one of the members who voted in favor was later found to be disqualified due to her failure to submit a caste certificate within the required timeframe. The appellant challenged the validity of the motion, arguing that the two-thirds majority should be computed based on the number of members legally entitled to sit and vote.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the disqualified member’s vote could be counted towards the two-thirds majority required to pass a no-confidence motion.
• Whether the High Court erred in upholding the no-confidence motion without considering the impact of the disqualified vote.
• The correct method of computing the two-thirds majority under Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

Petitioner’s (Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule’s) Arguments

The appellant contended that the vote of a disqualified member should not be considered while determining the required two-thirds majority. His counsel argued:

“The total number of valid members entitled to sit and vote was eight. Two-thirds of eight is 5.33, which means at least six valid votes were needed to pass the motion. Since only five valid votes were cast, the motion was not passed as per law.”

The appellant further emphasized that the disqualification of one member was automatic under the law due to non-submission of the caste certificate, and thus, her vote should not have been counted.

Respondents’ (State of Maharashtra & Others) Arguments

The respondents defended the validity of the no-confidence motion, asserting:

“The two-thirds majority should be computed based on the number of members present and voting, excluding the disqualified member. Since seven members were present and six votes were in favor, the motion was validly passed.”

The respondents argued that the High Court correctly upheld the motion, as the disqualified member’s presence did not alter the overall result.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer, ruled that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the law. The Court held:

“The words ‘not less than two-thirds of the total number of members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote’ indicate that disqualified members cannot be counted in the computation of the majority.”

The Court emphasized that rounding off 5.33 to five would be incorrect, as votes cannot be expressed in fractions. It stated:

“The statutory mandate requires at least six votes to constitute a two-thirds majority. Since only five valid votes were cast, the motion must be held to have failed.”

Final Judgment

Finding procedural and legal flaws in the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The no-confidence motion was not validly passed. The judgment of the High Court and the order of the Additional Collector are set aside. The appellant shall continue to hold office as Sarpanch.”

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarification on Majority Computation: The ruling establishes that disqualified members cannot be included in the total count for computing the two-thirds majority.
• Protection Against Procedural Errors: The judgment ensures that procedural fairness is maintained in no-confidence motions.
• Strengthening Democratic Governance: By upholding statutory requirements, the ruling reinforces the importance of proper legal processes in local self-governance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of precise legal interpretation in democratic processes. By setting aside the no-confidence motion, the Court has reinforced the principle that statutory requirements must be strictly followed. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for similar disputes in local governance across India.

Petitioner Name: Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule.
Respondent Name: Tahsildar Sinnar & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Sinnar, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 10-12-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurul vs Tahsildar Sinnar & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-12-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category