TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a special leave petition filed only against the judgment in review was maintainable in the peculiar facts of the case; (ii) whether Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, authorising a no-confidence motion against a Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha, was inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution of India, including Article 243N, or unconstitutional because the office was held by a candidate belonging to a reserved category.
Issue (i): whether a special leave petition filed only against the judgment in review was maintainable in the peculiar facts of the case.
Analysis: The ordinary rule is that a special leave petition directed only against the order rejecting review is not maintainable if the main judgment is not challenged. However, the Court noted that in the peculiar sequence of proceedings it had already entertained the matter and therefore proceeded to examine the controversy on merits to bring finality to the dispute.
Conclusion: The objection to maintainability did not prevent the Court from deciding the matter on merits in the peculiar facts.
Issue (ii): whether Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, authorising a no-confidence motion against a Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha, was inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution of India, including Article 243N, or unconstitutional because the office was held by a candidate belonging to a reserved category.
Analysis: Part IX empowers the State Legislature to make laws governing the composition, election, reservation, disqualification, and functioning of Panchayats. Section 28 prescribes a structured democratic procedure requiring support of the prescribed majority of elected members, and it does not conflict with the constitutional scheme merely because the Constitution does not expressly mention a no-confidence motion. The Court held that Article 243N did not render the provision obsolete, since the State law was neither inconsistent with nor repugnant to Part IX. The challenge based on reservation also failed because a member elected from a seat reserved for women generally was not entitled to immunity from a no-confidence motion, and removal of the Chairperson did not nullify the reservation scheme; the institution continued and a replacement could be chosen from the relevant reserved category where applicable. The Court further held that the earlier precedent upholding the constitutional validity of the no-confidence mechanism remained good law and was not per incuriam.
Conclusion: Section 28 was held valid and consistent with Part IX of the Constitution, and the reservation-based challenge was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the no-confidence motion mechanism failed, the constitutional validity of the impugned statutory provision was upheld, and all connected proceedings met the same fate.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to regulate Panchayat institutions, a statutory provision enabling removal of a Panchayat Chairperson by a duly prescribed no-confidence motion is not unconstitutional merely because Part IX does not expressly mention such a motion, provided the law preserves the democratic mandate of majority support.
TaxTMI 
