LI Network
Published on: February 9, 2024 at 13:01 IST
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch (Village head) of Jambulani Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra.
Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan emphasized that when an individual is disqualified automatically as a Gram Panchayat member, rejecting a no-confidence motion based on the voting requirement not being fulfilled is not justified.
The bench stated, “Appellant No.1 has ceased to be a member because of the automatic disqualification. In view of this, the proceedings of the Tahsildar…rejecting the No Confidence Motion on the ground that the voting requirement of three-fourths of the members ‘entitled to sit and vote’ cannot be sustained and has rightly been set aside by the High Court.”
The dispute centered on the validity of a no-confidence motion against Sarpanch Sushila Sitaram Kalel of Jambulani Gram Panchayat.
The outcome hinged on the legitimacy of Sudhir Vilas Kalel (Appellant No. 1) as a Panchayat member. For the motion to succeed, it needed support from at least three-fourths of the total eligible members.
The Supreme Court noted, “Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed to produce the Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date of his election. The protective umbrella of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by Section 3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no valid application pending on the date of the commencement of the said Act.”
The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to set aside the rejection of the no-confidence motion, concluding that it was duly carried. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. vs Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.