Sindhu Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J:— The nuances of democracy come with experience and long standing usage and practices. Democracy is a phenomenon which is absorbed by a political system. It cannot be injected as a wonder drug to give an instant effect. Losing the experience of democracy is as dangerous as losing democracy itself. The present case is an example which shows the aftermath of Bihar not having self Government for three decades, and its effect. Mob majority has been misunderstood as democracy. This case is about an elected Pradhan of a Panchayat bundled out of his office contrary to the rule of law. One Shaligram Singh brought a petition with a grievance that a motion of no confidence had been brought against him without specifying any misdemeanour or charges upon which the motion had been acted upon. It was on a requisition dated 24 August, 2001. The Executive Officer convened a meeting on 17 September, 2001 and thereafter this meeting was chaired by the Circle Officer, Piparia in the absence of Block Development Officer. It was rescheduled for 21 September, 2001. Thereafter, on the date when this meeting was scheduled i.e, 21 September, 2001 it was chaired by the Uppramukh. A motion of no confidence was brought by one of the members of the Panchayat Samiti, one Mr. Ramakant Sharma and was supported by three lady members Mrs. Anita Kumari, Mrs. Sukumari Devi and Mrs. Sindhu Devi. The motion was carried. Thereafter, by a letter no. 219 dated 21 September, 2001 the day of the meeting itself, the Block Development Officer, Piparia removed the petitioner as Pramukh of the Piparia Block Panchayat.

2. On the writ petition the learned Judge noticed the record and found that the notice or the requisition (24 August, 2001) which was the very foundation of the motion of no confidence did not indicate the ground, the basis or the proposition on which the action for a motion of no confidence was contemplated. In the face of a groundless and a baseless requisition, the motion of no confidence was quashed by the learned Judge and the writ petition of the Pramukh of the Panchayat was allowed.

3. The present letters patent appeal has been filed by the three lady members of the Panchayat, who supported the notice upon which the motion of no confidence was to be considered. The mover of the motion, as mentioned earlier was, one Ramakant Sharma with the support of these three ladies. Having succeeded in his mischief until the motion of no confidence was quashed, Ramakant Sharma took a back seat. The Up-Pramukh apparently was part of this manoeuvering in local politics of the village. He has made himself only one of the appellants in this letters patent appeal as if engineering a situation that the drivers seat he has been put into, should not be disturbed. This is all petty intrigue in grass root politics in which the local Government officials have also participated.

4. The court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the four appellants aggrieved on the order of the writ petition quashing the notice to bring in a motion of no confidence. The matter has been argued strenuously. The themes of the arguments have been, basically three; (a) that the majority participated in the meeting on the motion of no confidence and that majority is democracy (b) if charges and allegations are not mentioned in the requisition or notice seeking a motion for no confidence, the requisition is neither bad nor defective under the Act and (c) there is no obligation to specify the charges in the notice seeking a motion for no confidence.

5. In these circumstances, what is relevant is to see the very genesis of the motion of no confidence which was to be faced by the Pramukh. The notice as was presented and addressed to the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Piparia is reproduced:

6. Thus, the record to bring in an action for a motion for no confidence against a Pramukh, an elected office, is on record. On record, there is not a shred nor a whisper of what is the wrong done by the Pramukh and what exactly he is up against when he will face an opportunity, to reply as to why he should not be bundled out of his office.

7. The court is afraid that it does not agree with the counsel for the appellants that majority is a democracy. If this be so, would it not be mobocracy? After all democracy functions on sanctions, sanctions of the law. Democratic institutions follow, respect and protect the Rule of Law. Otherwise, majority is not democracy but anarchy. Brute majority cannot belittle democratic institutions. Such bad practises lend themselves to dictatorships. This is an example which reflects the evils of having lost 30 years of experience on self Government, even the basic norms of democracy in institutions of self Government have been forgotten. Coming down, now, to realities and the concept under which a motion of no confidence may be considered.

8. The learned Judge has already noticed the provisions. This court is only reiterating them. An action may be brought for a motion of no confidence against a Pramukh or a Uppramukh of Panchayat Samiti. But this action is not in a vacuum. The law itself contemplates that the man charged will have an opportunity of being heard before being removed from his office for any misconduct in discharge of his duties. The expression “an opportunity of being heard”, and the expression “misconduct in the discharge of his duties”, are expressions which are mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The mechanics of bringing in a motion of no confidence also rests on the premises that should there be a written request of not less than ⅓rd of the total number of members present on a date, within 15 days from such a receipt, a special meeting will be called. But, the law enjoins that such a notice will need to indicate the object for which the meeting is proposed. The exercise to indicate the object contemplates consideration of identified issues in objectivity.

9. The expression used in the enactment is “specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called”. This is mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 44. When these obligations have been taken care of that is a notice given by a member in writing, a notice which indicates the charges of misconduct or the misdemeanour which a Pramukh or a Up-Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti may have to face, then a scheduled period has to lapse and only thereafter a meeting is to be held and then only the business is to be transacted. Again, the law refers to the expression “the business to be transacted”.

10. In the circumstances the law enjoins a fair opportunity to the person who faces a charge on an allegation for misconduct or misdemeanour to avail of the opportunity and give his defence before the Panchayat Samiti. After these conditions are satisfied, only thereafter may the Panchayat Samiti consider a motion of no confidence.

11. Thus, the court can hardly agree with the four appellants or for that matter their counsel that a bare notice without specifying allegation is enough. Such a notice calling a motion of no confidence without recording or listing allegations, is void at the threshold. A brute majority by members in absence of indicated misconduct cannot decide the fate of a Pramukh or an Uppramukh. This is not democracy.

12. This letters patent appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. The order of the learned Judge on the writ petition is not in error.

13. After having lost the experience of self Government in the State for 30 years there is a special obligation which lies on the Executive Officer, Block Development Officer and the Circle Officer to ensure that a motion of no confidence must be strictly in accordance with the Act and the person who is to face must know what the charges are. Further, the court would like to indicate to the State counsel to ensure that sufficient guidelines are given to bureaucracy nearer the Panchayats to refrain from interfering with internal matters of panchayats and not to take sides or be partisan in unsettling local self Government. Further, all those who are obliged to monitor a requisition or a motion of no confidence should be advised not to fall into a fault as in the present case and so easily send a requisition to consider a motion of no confidence to the Panchayat Samiti, without reference to charges attributing misconduct; as is the obligation under law.

14. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.