Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a dispute concerning the inclusion of a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the quorum for a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti, and whether the MP could vote on such motion. The appellant, Seema Sarkar, was the Pramukh against whom a no-confidence motion was moved on 19 December 2007. The Panchayat Samiti consisted of five directly elected members and one MP as an ex-officio member. A meeting was scheduled for 2 January 2017, but only three elected members attended. The Executive Officer dissolved the meeting for want of quorum, holding that four members were required (two-thirds of six total members). Respondent No.6, who moved the motion, challenged this decision in the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the MP should not be counted for quorum or allowed to vote. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the MP was a member entitled to participate and vote, and quorum required four members. The Division Bench reversed, holding that the MP could not participate or vote in no-confidence motions, as only elected members could remove the Pramukh. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Single Judge's order. The Court held that under Section 107 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994, the MP is a member of the Panchayat Samiti with a right to vote in all meetings, including no-confidence motions. The quorum for a special meeting is two-thirds of the total membership, which includes the MP. The Court distinguished the election of Pramukh (by and from elected members) from removal, noting that the Regulation does not restrict voting rights in removal proceedings. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and directed that the no-confidence motion be proceeded with in accordance with law, including the MP's participation and vote.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Quorum for No-Confidence Motion - Inclusion of MP - Section 107, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 - The issue was whether the Member of Parliament representing the Union Territory, being an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti, should be counted for quorum in a special meeting for no-confidence motion against the Pramukh. The Supreme Court held that the MP is a member of the Panchayat Samiti with a right to vote in all meetings, including the no-confidence motion, and thus must be included for quorum. The court reasoned that the Regulation does not distinguish between elected and ex-officio members for quorum purposes. (Paras 2-3, 10) B) Panchayat Law - Right to Vote in No-Confidence Motion - MP's Participation - Sections 107(3)(b), 112(1), 115, 117, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 - The court examined whether the MP can vote on a no-confidence motion. It held that the MP, as a member of the Panchayat Samiti with a right to vote under Section 107(3)(b), is entitled to participate and vote in the no-confidence motion. The court distinguished the election of Pramukh (by and from elected members) from removal proceedings, noting that the Regulation does not restrict voting rights in removal motions. (Paras 5-7, 10) C) Constitutional Law - Panchayat Self-Government - Articles 243C, 243R, Constitution of India - The court considered the constitutional scheme of Panchayati Raj and the representation of MPs in Panchayats. It held that the MP's inclusion in the Panchayat Samiti is to ensure coordination and does not affect the democratic process of removal of office bearers. The court emphasized that the Regulation must be interpreted to give effect to the object of self-government. (Paras 6-7, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Member of Parliament representing the Union Territory, being an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti, is to be included for reckoning the quorum of a special meeting regarding a motion of no confidence against the Pramukh, and whether he/she can vote on such motion under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 and the Rules thereunder.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order. The Court held that the MP is a member of the Panchayat Samiti with full voting rights, including in no-confidence motions, and must be counted for quorum. The matter was remanded to the Executive Officer to proceed with the no-confidence motion in accordance with law, including the MP's participation and vote.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'total membership' for quorum
- Right of MP to vote in no-confidence motion
- Distinction between elected and nominated members in Panchayat Samiti
